biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

The Fate and Location of the Foundation Stone

Evn Shetiyyah is a Jewish name for the stone that was beneath the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies within the Temple. It is also referred to as the foundation stone.

Foundation Stone – The Foundation Stone (Hebrew: translit. Even haShetiya) or Rock (Arabic: translit. Sakhrah, Hebrew: translit.: Sela) is the name of the rock at the heart of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. – wikipedia.org

Foundation Stone – The Mishnah in tractate Yoma^[18] mentions a stone situated in the Holy of Holies that was called Shetiya and had been revealed by the early prophets, (i.e. David and Samuel.^[19]) - wikipedia.org

Some of those who believe that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform claim that the rock under the Dome of the Rock is the Evn Shetiyyah.

Anyway, you do know, that this is the claim, that this is the foundation stone of the Temple. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 39 minutes and 55 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Foundation Stone – Early Jewish writings assist in confirming that the Dome of the Rock, completed in 691, is the site of the Holy of Holies and therefore the location of the Foundation Stone. Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer,^[1] a midrashic narrative of the more important events of the Pentateuch believed to have been compiled in Italy shortly after 833 CE, writes: “Rabbi Yishmael said: In the future, the sons of Ishmael (the Arabs) will do fifteen things in the Land of Israel … They will fence in the breaches of the walls of the Temple and construct a building on the site of the sanctuary”. Religious Jewish scholars have discussed the precise location of the rock. The Radbaz is convinced that “under the dome on the Temple Mount, which the Arabs call El-Sakhrah, without a doubt is the location of the Foundation Stone”.^[2] The Travels of Rabbi Petachiah of Ratisbon,^[3] c.1180, The Travels of Benjamin of Tudela^[4] and The Travels of the Student of the Ramban all equally state that "on the Temple Mount stands a beautiful sanctuary which an Arab king built long ago, over the place of the Temple sanctuary and courtyard”. Rabbi Obadiah ben Abraham who wrote a letter from Jerusalem in 1488 says that “I sought the place of the Foundation Stone where the Ark of the Covenant was placed, and many people told me it is under a tall and beautiful dome which the Arabs built in the Temple precinct".^[5]- wikipedia.org

David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra – The Radbaz was born in Spain around 1479. – wikipedia.org

However, modern Jewish scholarship has identified at least four separate potential locations for the Temple’s foundation stone.

Foundation Stone – Modern Jewish academics list four possible locations of the Foundation Stone:[3] 1. The stone is located beneath the Ark of the Covenant under the Dome of the Rock.[4] 2. The stone is located beneath the Altar under the Dome of the Rock.[5] 3. The stone is located beneath the Ark of the Covenant near El Kas fountain to the south of the Dome of the Rock.[6] 4. The stone is located beneath the Ark of the Covenant inside the Spirits Dome situated to the north of the Dome of the Rock.[7] – wikipedia.org

Asher Kaufman is one scholar who dissents from the traditional view that the foundation stone is at the Dome of the Rock. He claims that the foundation stone is not at the Dome of the Rock as others have supposed. Instead, Kaufman uses Muslim traditions to identify the place of Evn Shetiyyah at the Dome of the Spirits.

And I found it is called the Dome of the Spirits. Added further, this little dome is based upon solid rock, upon bedrock. Notice something here. Something green is to be found in the Holy of Holies. What is it? The next slide will show what it is. It is a small dome which we saw before from the Mount of Olives, the Dome of the Spirits also called, the Dome of the Tablets, also called the prison of the genie. The name the Dome of the Tablets is particularly interesting because De Vogue, who gives it this particular name, says it is dedicated to the memory of the Tablets of the Law. What did he mean by this? Why is this name given? Because we know that in the Holy of Holies of the first Temple there was the Ark, resting on the foundation stone of the Temple and within the Ark, the two tablets of the testimony. So this name seems to be a reminder of what one would expect to find in the Holy of Holies. – Dr. Asher Kaufman, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 1 hour, 28 minutes, and 58 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

The second name…the Dome of the Tablets. And the third name, which was given to me by a local resident not far from where I live, he called it “The prison of the genie.” Spirits is perhaps a good name, genie is not such a good name. Let us take the second name, Dome of the Tablets. It’s a name given to us by one scholar, De Vogue, in 1864 in his book, in French, Le Temple de Jerusalem. And he refers to this dome. He doesn’t like it. He calls it an ugly dome, not worth seeing any more. But he says, according to the tradition he received that it is dedicated to the tablets of the Law. And if we think for a moment of the first Temple, there was on the foundation stone the ark of the two tablets of the testimony. So, somehow things fit. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 40 minutes and 24 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

So, various suggestions exist today for the location of the foundation stone. However, a passage in the Talmud states that the foundation stone itself had also been destroyed.

Foundation Stone – Commemoration in Jewish law – The Jerusalem Talmud^[21] states: "Women are accustomed not to prepare or attach warp threads to a weaving loom^[22] from Rosh Chodesh> Av onwards (till after Tisha B'Av), because during the month of Av the Foundation Stone (and the Temple) was destroyed".^[23]Citing this, the Mishnah Berurah^[24] rules that not only are women not to prepare or attach warp threads to a weaving loom, but it is forbidden for anyone to make, buy or wear new clothes or shoes from the beginning of the week in which Tisha B'av falls until after the fast, and that people should ideally not do so from the beginning of Av. In further commemoration of the Foundation Stone, it is also forbidden to eat meat or drink wine from the beginning of the week in which Tisha B'av falls until after the fast. Some have the custom to refrain from these foodstuffs from Rosh Chodesh Av, while others do so from the Seventeenth of Tammuz.^[25] - wikipedia.org

If as the Talmud says, the foundation stone was destroyed and mourned by Jews of earlier generations, then the stones beneath the Dome of the Rock, the Dome of the Tablets, or any of the other suggested locations, cannot be the real foundation stone.

It would seem that locating the foundation stone of the Temple is a bit like finding a 500-cubit square on the Moriah Platform. In neither case is the historical and archeological information specific enough to actually pinpoint a single, unique, or particular site over any other supposed site. There was a foundation stone in the Temple of Solomon, but we don’t know if it survived either of the Temple’s destructions or reconstructions. The result is that one can basically point to a stone at a particular site that they suppose may be the location of the Temple and then conclude (with as good of a reason as any other) that the stone is the foundation stone of the Temple. But such arguments constitute proof of nothing, except perhaps circular reasoning.

Additionally, historical accounts indicate that the Evn Shetiyyah was a level-surface that was portable. Earlier we looked at the Arab-Christian historian Eutychius’ account of Umar being shown the ruins of the Jewish Temple. In that account, Eutychius reported that Umar discussed whether the rock that they found should be placed at the center of the sanctuary which he was planning or whether the rock should be placed at the end of the new sanctuary.

Then Omar said to him: ‘You owe me a rightful debt. Give me a place in which I might build a sanctuary.’ The patriarch said to him: ‘I will give to the Commander of the Faithful a place to build a sanctuary where the kings of Rum were unable to build. It is the rock where God spoke to Jacob and which Jacob called the Gate of Heaven and the Israelites the Holy of Holies. It is in the center of the world and was a Temple for the Israelites, who held it in great veneration and wherever they were they turned their faces toward it during prayer. But on this condition, that you promise in a written document that no other sanctuary wil be built inside of Jerusalem. Therefore, Omar ibn al-Khattab wrote him the document on this matter and handed it over to him. [Sophronius then remarked that this area was in ruins when] [t]hey were Romans when they embrace the Christian religion, and Helena, the mother of Constantine built the churches of Jerusalem. The place of the rock and the area around it were deserted ruins and they poured dirt over the rock so that great was the filth above it. The Byzantines, however, neglected it and did not hold it in veneration, nor did they build a church over it because Christ our Lord said in his Holy Gospel ‘Not a stone will be left upon a stone which will not be ruined and devasted.’ For this reason, the Christian left it as a ruin and did not build a church over it. So Sophronius took Omar ibn al-Khattab by the hand and stood him over the filth. Omar, taking hold of his cloak filled it with dirt and threw it into the Valley of Gehenna. When the Muslims saw Omar ibn al-Khattab carrying dirt with his own hands, they all immediately began carrying dirt in their cloaks and shields and what have you until the whole place was cleansed and the rock was revealed. Then they all said: ‘Let us build a sanctuary and let us place the stone at its heart.’ ‘No,’ Omar responded. ‘We will build a sanctuary and place the stone at the end of the sanctuary.’ Therefore Omar built a sanctuary and put the stone at the end of it. – Eutychius, translated by F.E. Peters, Jerusalem, pp.189-190, citing frm D. Baldi, Enchiridion Locoum Sanctorum, pp.447-8, quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 123, Footnote, 160

We have already noted that the site of the Temple had become a garbage dump. And we have noted that the site of the Temple was not the same location where sacred Roman and Byzantine buildings had stood on the Moriah Platform. And we have noted that Umar did build a mosque on the Moriah Platform, but it was not the Dome of the Rock. Instead, Umar built the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Umar – Umar, c. 586-590 CE – 7 November, 644, also known as Umar the Great or Farooq the Great was the most powerful of the four Rashidun Caliphs and one of the most powerful and influential Muslim rulers. – wikipedia.org

Al-Aqsa Mosque – The al-Aqsa Mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, - wikipedia.org

The Dome of the Rock – The Dome of the Rock was erected between 685 and 691 CE. The names of the two engineers in charge of the project are given as: Yazid Ibn Salam from Jerusalem and Raja Ibn Haywah from Baysan. Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who initiated construction of the Dome, - wikipedia.org

Abd al-Malik – Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (646-705) was the 5th Umayyad Caliph. – wikipedia.org

There are several important results of these historical facts. First, if Umar used the foundation stone of the Temple for his new sanctuary, then the foundation stone is a part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the Dome of the Rock. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is at the very southern end of the Moriah Platform.

Second, Umar deliberated whether the rock he found at the site of the Jewish Temple should be placed at the center of his new sanctuary or at the end of the sanctuary. According to Eutychius, Umar did not simply plan and construct the sanctuary around the stone in such a way that the stone would be at the end. Rather, Umar built the sanctuary first and then placed the stone at the end of it. Such comments reveal that the rock from the Temple site was portable. Umar wasn’t building a sanctuary at the former site of the Temple. He was using stones from the Temple to build a Muslim sanctuary in another location, in this case on the southern end of the Moriah Platform.

Third, we should also note that the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock is at the center of that structure. However, Umar decided to place the rock that he found at the end of his new sanctuary. This is another reason that the rock at the Dome of the Rock can neither be the rock that Umar found nor can it be the foundation stone. The Dome of the Rock is not the location of the foundation stone of the Temple.

Fourth, we should also note that the Mishnah reports that this foundation stone was in the Temple since the times of the early prophets. This seems to indicate that the foundation stone was placed there and was not there previously. And it also fits with the account of Umar above which seems to indicate that the rock that he found was movable. Likewise, the Mishnah also states that the foundation stone was three fingers above the ground.

“After the Ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the days of the earlier prophets, called the Shethiya, three fingers above the ground, on which he would place. He would take the blood from him who was stirring it, and enter into the place.” –Mishnah Tractate Yoma, quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 86, Footnote 116

By contrast, the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock is an outcropping of the bedrock of the Moriah ridge. And it is much higher than three fingers above the surrounding area. Clearly, the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock was always there. It was not movable and it is much too high to be the foundation stone.

Foundation Stone – The Rock constitutes the peak of this now hidden hill, which is also the highest in early biblical Jerusalem, looming over the City of David, and hence the Rock is one of the highest points of the Old City…. the rock is part of the surrounding bedrock… – wikipedia.org

Fifth, let us take account of several other Jewish traditions about the Evn Shetiyyah. Supposedly, it was the very rock where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. It was also the stone that Jacob used as a pillow. It was the foundation stone that God used to create the entire world. While such notions may confirm that the rock was understood to be movable, they are hardly substantiated by scripture or history. And yet it is this same type of thinking which argues that the rock under the Dome of the Rock is the foundation stone from the Temple of Solomon. This is despite the fact that the Solomon’s Temple was destroyed over 2500 years ago. It has been reconstructed and then destroyed on at least two other occasions.

Temple Mount – Traditions relating to the site, Jewish, According to an Aggada in the Talmud, the world was created from the Foundation Stone on the Temple Mount[8] According to the Bible, the place where Abraham fulfilled God's test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac was Mount Moriah, which the Talmud says was another name for the Temple Mount. The Bible recounts that Jacob dreamt about angels ascending and descending a ladder while sleeping on a stone. The Talmud says that this took place on the Temple Mount, and Jewish tradition has it that the rock in the Dome of the Rock was the one on which he slept. Rashi also identifies the site as the place where Jacob and Rebbeca prayed, asking God to grant them children.[9] According to the Bible, King David purchased a threshing floor owned by Aravnah the [10] overlooking Jerusalem upon the cessation of a plague, to erect an altar. He wanted to construct a permanent temple there, but as his hands were "bloodied", he was forbidden to do so himself, so this task was left to his son Solomon, who completed the task c. 950 BCE. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_mount

Sixth, there is an even more plausible identification of the rock under the Dome of the Rock. Both Josephus and the New Testament indicate that a significant rock structure was the main feature of the Roman Praetorian, the Fortress of Antonia.

8. Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8

Josephus states that in Herodian times the rock of Antonia was covered with smooth stones. The New Testament refers to the place where Jesus was tried by Pilate as a raised place that was paved with stones.

John 19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement (3038), but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha (1042).

3038 lithostrotos

from 3037 and a derivative of 4766; ; adj

AV-Pavement 1; 1
1) spread (paved with stones)
2) a mosaic or tessellated pavement

2a) of a place near the praetorium or palace of Jerusalem

2b) an apartment whose pavement consists of tessellated work

2c) of places in the outer courts of temple

3037 lithos

apparently a primary word; TDNT-4:268,534; n m

AV-stone 49, one stone 4, another 4, stumbling stone + 4348 2, mill stone + 3457 1; 60

1) a stone

1a) of small stones

1b) of building stones

1c) metaph. of Christ

1042 gabbatha

of Aramaic origin, cf 01355 atbg; ; n pr loc

AV-Gabbatha 1; 1

Gabbatha =" elevated or a platform"

1) a raised place, elevation

And Dan Bahat indicates that the Antonia was the site where Christ was tried by Pilate.

…the Antonia, which is so famous because it is being believed to be the site where Pontius Pilate tried Christ. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

As we saw earlier, Christian pilgrims identified a rock located on a high point of the Moriah ridge with the rock where Christ was tried before Pontius Pilate. Whether it is referred to as the rock of Antonia and or as the rock of the Roman Praetorian, this rock was north of the former site of Temple. Writing in the sixth century AD, Antoninus of Piacenza, the Piacenza Pilgrim, reported that Byzantine church called the Church of the Holy Wisdom was built over a stone that marked the former site of Fortress Antonia. Antoninus of Piacenza specifically states that this was where Jesus was tried by Pilate and where Jesus’ feet made impressions on the rock.

We also prayed at the Praetorium, where the Lord’s case was heard: what is there now is the basilica of Saint Sophia, which is in front of the Temple of Solomon below the street which runs down to the spring of Siloam outside of Solomon’s porch. In this basilica is the seat where Pilate sat to hear the Lord’s case, and there is also the oblong stone which used to be in the center of the Praetorium. The accused person whose case was being heard was made to mount this stone so that everyone could hear and see him. The Lord mounted it when he was heard by Pilate, and his footprints are still on it. – Life of Constantine in Wilkinson’s Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, p.204, quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 97

The church mentioned by Antoninus of Piacenza was located on the Moriah Platform at the site of the Dome of the Rock today.

Temple Mount – About 325 it is believed that Constantine's mother, St. Helena, built a small church on the Mount in the 4th century, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later on enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom. The church was later destroyed and on its ruins the Dome of the Rock was built.^[9] – wikipedia.org

In fact, the dome of the Dome of the Rock is modeled off of the domed church structures of the Byzantines. Some of these Byzantine structures had even formerly occupied the same site.

Dome of the Rock - The Dome - Exterior - The Dome is in the shape of a Byzantine martyrium, a structure intended for the housing and veneration of saintly relics, and is an excellent example of middle Byzantine art. - wikipedia.org

Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim writer of the thirteenth century, criticizes Muslim traditions similar to the Christian traditions mentioned by Antoninus of Piacenza. Antoninus mentioned the Christian belief that Jesus’ footprints were imprinted onto the rock of the Roman Fortress. Later, Muslim traditions claimed that there were impressions in the rock of the Dome of the Rock that had been made by Mohammad or perhaps even by God himself.

“What some of the ignorant ones have mentioned is that there is a footprint of the Prophet – God bless him and grant him salvation – or a trace of his turban or the like on it. All of this, however, is a lie. The greatest lie is from those who think that it is the place of the footprint of the Lord and likewise that it is the place mentioned as the cradle of Jesus – Peace be upon him. It is nothing more than the baptismal font of the Christians.” – Ibn Taymiyya, quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 91, Footnote 127

Ibn Taymiyyah – Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (January 22, 1263 – 1328), full name: Taqī ad-Dīn Abu 'l-‘Abbās Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Halīm ibn ‘Abd as-Salām Ibn Taymiya al-Harrānī, was a famous Muslim scholar born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. As a member of the school founded by Ibn Hanbal, he sought the return of Islam to its sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah. – wikipedia.org

Ibn Taymiyyah – Shrines – Since he was a strong proponent of Tawhid, ibn Taymiyyah opposed giving any undue religious honors to shrines (even that of Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa), to approach or rival in any way the Islamic sanctity of the two most holy mosques within Islam, Mecca (Masjid al Haram) and Medina (Masjid al-Nabawi).^[17]- wikipedia.org

These historical references inform us that Antonia, the Roman fortress of Jerusalem, featured a prominent the rock which occupied an elevated position. The rock beneath Dome of the Rock fits this description quite well. Likewise, early Christian traditions identify the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock with the place of the Roman fortress where Jesus was tried by Pilate. Similarly, later Muslim traditions claimed that Mohammad’s footprints were on the rock of the Dome of the Rock.

Lack of historical corroboration regarding the foundation stone of the Temple (and its fate) inherently results in an inability to identify any particular stone as definitively being that unique stone. The Talmud even indicates that the foundation stone was, in fact, destroyed. There is therefore no compelling reason to identify the Dome of the Rock as the site of the Temple simply because there is a large stone outcropping beneath the shrine.

On the other hand, these historical indications provide additional evidence that the Moriah Platform was the Roman fortress Antonia. The rock beneath of the Dome of the Rock was once the site of Byzantine church that marked the site where Jesus was tried by Pilate near the rock of Antonia Fortress. These facts again indicate that the Jewish Temple would have been located south of the Moriah Platform on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge near Davidic Jerusalem.

Conclusions on the Location of the Temple

We have completed a comprehensive survey of the relevant biblical, historical, and archeological data on the location of the Temples in Jerusalem. On each issue we have provided a careful, firsthand investigation of the biblical and historical documents themselves. Alongside of this we have constantly referenced the expert opinions of reknowned and accredited scholars in the field. Below we will summarize many of the points that we have discovered as we examined the information presented by these sources. Before we proceed with a summary of the historical evidences, an additional point is worth making.

In 2007, we visited Jerusalem during the fall feast days. During our stay we took a tour of Hezekiah’s tunnel, the ancient water system that cuts through the ridge underneath the Jerusalem of David’s time. On the hike through the streets from the Pool of Siloam back to our starting point at the archeological site, participants had the opportunity to talk to the guide and ask questions. We took the opportunity to ask the guide for his expert opinion as an archeologist on the various theories concerning the site of the Temple. His response was that the location of the Temple was more of a political or religious matter. His response wasn’t a denial of the existence of the former Temple. Nor was it a denial of the value of historical and archeological evidence. Rather it seemed to me to be an observation that religious tradition and political issues had become the dominant criteria for locating the Temple.

The reason we mention this experience is because it illustrates an important issue with regard to identifying the Temple’s original site. As our guide’s comments seemed to suggest, the location of the Temple should not be a matter of religious tradition or political agenda. Rather, where the Temple was located is an archeological and historical matter that can only be determined by the evidence provided in historical descriptions and any available archeological remains. To operate under any other methodology is to risk identifying the wrong site. Considering the subject of our study and the precedent of mistakenly identifying the wrong site for Davidic Jerualem, we must be strongly resistant to the temptation to filter the evidence in order to support only pre-selected conclusions that fit with historically recent religious traditions or popular political agendas.

Likewise, to reduce the location of the Temple a religious or political matter minimizes the importance of this issue. But beyond this, to remove the location of the Temple from being a purely biblical, historical, and archeological issue forfeits any objection we would have to others who, for their own religious or political reasons, may wish to conclude that there never was Jewish Temple in Jerusalem or that the city itself has no Jewish heritage. If we insist that there was a Temple in Jerusalem, we can only do so because biblical, historical, and archeological data demand this conclusion. And if we appeal to these sources to say that there was a Temple in Jerusalem then we must allow the same sources to inform us of where that Temple was. We cannot, having committed to a scientific and sound methodology, withdraw our commitment when it doesn’t suit our personal interests. Instead, we cannot let our religious traditions or political ideologies interfere. We must accept what the weight of the evidence requires us to conclude without regard for subjective concerns.

Over and over again throughout the course of our study we have gathered a large set of evidence that overwhelming points toward a location of the Temple on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge near the Gihon Spring and the area of Davidic Jerusalem. This area is south of the Moriah Platform that we see today. Support for placing the Temple further north was largely maintained by presumption, a less than thorough accounting of the actual information provided in all the sources, an appeal to one of several 500 cubit square areas on the Moriah Platform using severly limited archeological evidence, and a commitment to traditions that have emerged only over the last 500-1000 years which contradict the earliest reports.

Having finished our study, here is a list of the historical, biblical, and archeological evidences we have examined regarding the rebuilding of the Temple and its former location. Each entry includes a summary of the main point as well as what the relevant data indicates regarding the Temple site.

1. Old and New Testament passages clearly necessitate that there will be a Temple in existence prior to Christ’s return.

2. The Temple will be rebuilt by Jewish and Gentile Christians NOT by the antichrist or persons who are not followers of Christ. The bible does not indicate that there will be a seven-year treaty between the antichrist and Israel.

3. The New Covenant is not antithetical to the Temple or Temple activities.

4. Today, there are at least four major, different theories on the former location of the Temple. Over the centuries the number of locations ranges from 11 to 14. A number of these sites were not on the Moriah Platform.

5. The Temple was located on the Moriah Ridge, the central ridge of Jerusalem between the Tyropoeon and Kidron Valleys.

6. The rock beneath the Dome of the Rock is not large enough and is too uneven to fit with the biblical descriptions of the threshing floor that the Temple was built upon.

7. Davidic Jerusalem occupied a hill on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge south of the Moriah Plaform that we see today.

8. We have no biblical, historical, or archeological evidence that Solomon’s Jerusalem was significantly different than Davidic Jerusalem in is size or location. But the Moriah Platform location is outside the area of Davidic Jerusalem by approximately half the length of the city.

9. The Temple was on a smaller hill over against the hill of Zion (Akra) and the Temple itself was adjoining to this fortress located at the peak of the hill of Zion (Akra). The Fortress of Zion was nearby the Gihon Spring. The Temple had a spring within its courts.

10. The Gihon water system which was within the Temple courts was located in the area of Davidic Jerusalem, south of the Moriah Platform. This includes the mikvah bath of Rabbi Ishmael the high priest of the second Temple period.

11. Biblical texts indicate that God’s dwelling place remained on the hill of Zion even after the Temple was built.

12. The hill of the Temple (God’s footstool) occupied a “daughter” hill located up against the peak of the greater hill of Zion (Akra). The peak of the Temple was lower in elevation than the hill of Zion and the fortress at its summit. Likewise, the Temple was adjoining the fortress located at the summit of Zion hill.

13. The Temple was located near the Ophel mount which is south of the Moriah Platform. Likewise, according to Nehemiah the Temple was located in close proximity to other civic, sacred, and royal structures of Jerusalem many of which were from the time of David. One of the Temple gates named in Tractate Middot is the Water Gate. This gate was named because through it water was brought directly from the Gihon Spring for use during the Feast of Tabernacles. This may indicate that this gate was adjacent to the Gihon Spring. This fact is corroborated by Nehemiah 12 which states that the Water Gate was next to the stairs that went up to the Fortress of Zion. I Kings 1 showed that the Fortress of Zion was nearby the Gihon Spring. Clearly, the Temple was nearby both sites which are south of the Moriah Platform.

14. The hill of the Temple was lower than the peak of Zion hill, which itself was called the Lower City. The hill of the Temple was also lower than the rock of the northern fortress of Antonia (earlier called Baris). It is difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate these historic and topographic facts while locating the Temple on northern portion of the Moriah ridge within the Moriah Platform. Instead, these topographical facts require that the site of the Temple was further south on the Moriah ridge, south of the Moriah Platform itself.

15. The Hasmonean fortress called the Baris and the Herodian fortress called Antonia both occupied the same site. The site of the Baris has been located beneath the Moriah Platform. Because of this we can identify the Moriah Platform, which was built by Herod, as Antonia Fortress. Since Antonia was north of the Temple, the Temple must be located south of the Moriah Platform.

16. The traditional site of Antonia Fortress at the Umayyah School is too small to fit the historical descriptions that it was large enough to block the view of the Temple from the north, that it housed an entire Roman legion of perhaps as much as 15,000 people, that it was like several cities, and that it had large spaces for camps in its interior. On the other hand, the Moriah Platform fits descriptions of Antonia quite well. The Temple, which was south of Antonia, would be south of the Moriah Platform.

17. The Temple was separated from Antonia by two covered passageways that were each approximately 600 feet long. Because it is reasonable to conclude that the Moriah Platform is Antonia Fortress, the Temple site must be approximately 600 feet to its south, which would put it within the area of Davidic Jerusalem near the Gihon Spring.

18. The rock beneath the Umariyah School is not high enough to be the rock of Antonia. The rock of Antonia was 75 feet (23 meters) higher than the surrounding area. Instead, the rock beneath the Umariyah School is only about 36 feet (9 meters) in height. However, the Dome of the Rock is approximately 75 feet (23 meters) higher than the area of the Ophel mount south of the Moriah Platform, which was near the site of the Temple.

19. Josephus states that the eastern corner of the Temple was founded very deep within the very floor of the Kidron Valley. However, the eastern wall of the Moriah Platform is founded over half way up the eastern slope of the Moriah ridge.

20. All of the structures of Herodian Jerusalem (including the Temple) were completely destroyed leaving no trace. Their walls were overthrown and dug up to the foundations. According to Josephus and the Jewish general Eleazar, only the Roman camp remained. The only structure of Herodian Jerusalem still standing today is the Moriah Platform. Clearly then, this structure cannot be the Temple. Instead, it must be the Roman camp, the Fortress of Antonia. The Temple was to its south.

21. According to Jewish, historical sources, the Temple mount was a square between 600 and 860 square feet. The area of the Temple mount was between 10-14 acres. The Moriah Platform is a trapezoid with sides ranging between 920 feet (280 meters) and 1600 feet (488 meters). The Moriah Platform is over 35 acres. Clearly, these structures are not the same. The Mishnaic description of the Temple mount’s dimensions provided in Tractate Middot refers to the holy precinct in which the Temple was located. It does not refer to the size of the Temple structure itself. By contrast, Josephus does provide the exact dimensions of the Herodian Temple’s outer perimeter. The two sources do not conflict with one another.

22. Attempts by scholars to find the 500-cubit square Temple mount provided in the Mishnah on the Moriah Platform using archeological features of the platform have yielded at least four completely irreconcilable results. As such, this method is neither adequate for identifying the real site of the Temple nor is it capable of generating compelling evidence that the Temple was actually located on the Moriah Platform. In other words, finding a 500-cubit square area on the Moriah Platform using archeological features of the platform and varying options for the length of the cubit proves nothing regarding the Temple’s location.

23. Conventional explanations which identify the greater Moriah Platform as the Herodian expansion of the Temple Mount and not the actual area of the Jewish Temple contradict Josephus’ eyewitness record that Herod’s enlargement of the Temple was only a square-stade (600 feet, 182 meters) in size. The Moriah Platform is three times the size of Herod’s enlargement of the Temple and trapezoidal instead of square. As such, the Moriah Platform is not the site of the Temple.

24. Additional elevation issues require that the Temple was located further south on the Moriah ridge than the Dome of the Rock. The view of Agrippa into the court of the priests, the level of the aqueduct, and the level of the Huldah Gates all require a lower elevation for the Temple than is possible on the northern portion of the Moriah ridge.

25. Post-destruction accounts indicate that the site of the Temple could not have been on the Moriah Platform. The former Temple site was a farm plowed by oxen, a wilderness, a garbage dump. It had never been built on. It was still in ruins in the eleventh century. The Moriah Platform had been the home of some of the sacred buildings of the Romans, Byzantine Christians, and Muslims.

26. Seventh century documents consistently confirms that the site of the Temple was south of the Moriah Platform. Jewish families requested to live near their Temple near the waters of Siloam, south of Muslim houses and the Al-Aqsa Mosque at the southern end of the Moriah Platform. Likewise, Umar did not build the Dome of the Rock. Nor did he build his new sanctuary at the site of the Temple. Both before and after Umar, the site of the Temple remained without ever being built upon. This fact was confirmed by medieval Jewish commentators David Kimchi, Maimonides, and dei Rossi.

27. In the Middle Ages, sacred sites were identified using divine revelation and miraculous claims because the sites themselves were no longer visible or known. In this period Davidic Jerusalem was wrongly placed on the western ridge, many theories for the Temple location were posited both on and off the Moriah Platform, and some Jewish traditions held that modern Jerusalem was several miles north of biblical Jerusalem. Such realities clearly show that the site of the Temple was not consistently known since the first century. And yet, major views of today heavily rely on simply assuming that that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform

28. Claims that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform are not based on archeological excavation. Excavation of any kind is strictly prohibited on the Moriah Platform.

29. There is no evidence that Jews venerated the western wall of the Moriah Platform prior to the sixteenth century. Jewish sources from before this time refer instead to the western wall of the partially completed the fourth century Temple building itself. There is no evidence that the western wall of the Moriah Platform has anything to do with the Jewish Temple. This is only a very late dating tradition. On the contrary, biblical instructions for the tabernacle and the Temple teach that God did not intend for His people to gather to worship Him by facing east.

30. In the fourth century AD there were two attempts to rebuild the Temple. Neither was completed. However, according to medieval Jewish sources, they did leave behind a partially constructed western wall of the Temple building itself. During the fourth century Byzantine churches existed on the Moriah Platform at the site of the Dome of the Rock. Clearly then, the fourth century Temple was not located at the Dome of the Rock on the Moriah Platform.

31. If, as Warren has reported, the ditch that Josephus recorded was north of Antonia Fortress is just north of the Dome of the Rock, then Antonia must have occupied the southern area of the Moriah Platform. This would mean that the Temple was located south of the Moriah Platform.

32. There are compelling reasons to conclude that Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the Moriah Platform. However, historical documents (including several renowned, medieval, Jewish commentators) report that Gentiles had never built any pagan structure on the site of the Temple. From this we know that Hadrian’s temple to Jupiter could not have been the former site of the Jewish Temple. If the Moriah Platform was the location of Hadrian’s temple to Jupiter, then it is not the site of the Temple. Similarly, Hadrian’s new city, Aelia Capitolina, and his new temple to Jupiter, were meant to replace Jerusalem and the Temple. However, historical data indicates that Hadrian’s constructions did not occupy the exact sites of Jerusalem of the Temple, but were slightly to the north.

33. Tuvia Sagiv claims that infrared scans have discovered the location of Strato’s Tower beneath the Dome of the Rock. Strato’s Tower was a location within Antonia Fortress. Therefore, if Sagiv’s report is correct, this is additional evidence that the Moriah Platform was Antonia Fortress. The Temple then, would have been located somewhere south of this platform.

34. Ancient documents indicate that there was a cave or “pierced stone” at the former site of the Temple. Likewise, Hadrian is said to have placed at least one statue there. However, the historical documents indicate that the cave was located south of the Byzantine churches at the future site of the Dome of the Rock. In addition, Hadrian set up many statues around his new city which he dedicated to the Roman gods. Excavations beneath the area of Davidic Jerusalem have discovered many caves and tunnels. As such, information regarding a cave at the former Temple site fails to provide support for the Moriah Platform Views. Instead, taken together in their historical context, these facts indicate that the Temple was south of the Moriah Platform.

35. Modern Jewish opinion has identified four different sites for the foundation stone of the Temple. However, the Talmud includes a statement that the foundation stone was destroyed. Likewise, historical data clearly shows that the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock is the rock of Antonia Fortress where Jesus was tried by Pilate. The Jewish Temple was located south of this Roman fortress. Therefore, the Temple must be south of the Moriah Platform.

These 35 findings are what the historical sources indicated. These are the same historical sources that biblical archeologists and professional scholars say provide the evidence for locating the Temple. These are the documents which such experts say are accurate and reliable in their descriptions.

Josephus Flavius…He has a problem with numbers of people to assume how many people were in an area or how many people were killed. But when he describes an area he is perfect. In Massada, exactly as he wrote down, exactly we find the place. In Gamla, in the Golan, the same thing, as he describes so we find it. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 46 minutes and 47 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

Every one of you knows that in order to learn the Temple Mount, it’s location, it’s courts, and everything you have got two basic sources, which can help you with that. The basic sources are first of all, Josephus Flavius, which is extremely important. And to Josephus Flavius, I will add, not as an independent source, I will add the Gospels and Acts because there are so many small details, which are so important to the Temple Mount like, and you will see how essential it is, Solomon’s portico, the court of the Gentiles, the pinnacle, and so many other things, which are mentioned only in the Gospels or in Acts, of the Beautiful Gate, for example, which is also important. All those show up only in the Gospels, but when you take the Gospels you’ll see that all the descriptions of the Gospels go very well along with Josephus Flavius. It is identical. I will say, in this respect, the Gospels, of course, add more detail. Now, on the other hand, the other one, which we have is, of course, the Mishnah. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 8 minutes and 48 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Professor Mazar who expressed to me personally that his own archaeological investigations proved that Josephus more often than not was correct in his eyewitness accounts. 149, Footnote 149: Before his death three years ago Professor Mazar was the Dean of Israeli archaeologists and past Rector and President of Hebrew University, as well as a professional historian. I worked personally with Professor Mazar at his major excavation at the western and southern wall of the Hara mesh-Sharif in Jerusalem from 1969 to 1974. Under Professor Mazar I directed the activities of 450 college students over that period of five years at that “dig.” – Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 112

Now, that we have examined what the sources say about the location of the Temple, we are in a position to take the advice of the scholars and accept the conclusions indicated by these historical witnesses. The conclusion that they demand is that the Temple was located on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge near the Gihon Spring and Davidic Jerusalem south of the Moriah Platform that we see today.