biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

The Temple Was Next to the Ophel

In the previous sections we have seen the biblical identification of “the daughter of Zion” as the hill of the Temple. This hill was a lower elevation somewhere on the hill of Zion and very near to the fortress at Zion’s peak and to the Gihon Spring. Other biblical and historical information also indicates that the hill of the Temple was near other areas in Davidic Jerusalem south of the Moriah Platform that we see today.

In Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Josephus explains that the Temple structure itself was built as and served as a fortress.

…for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8

Similarly, in Micah 4, the “daughter of Zion (and Jerusalem)” is referred to as a stronghold and a tower.

Micah 4:8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold (06076) of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

The word translated as “stronghold” here in Micah 4:8 is the Hebrew word “Ophel” (Strong’s number 06076). This word meaning “hill, mound, fort, or stronghold” actually has an added significance in relation to ancient Jerusalem. This Hebrew word “ophel” (Strong’s number 06076) and the related word “Ophel” (Strong’s number 06077) are used in the bible to refer to an elevated area of Jerusalem.

06077 Ophel

the same as 06076; n pr loc; {See TWOT on 1662 @@ "1662a"}

AV-Ophel 5; 5

Ophel =" hill"

1) a ridge of hills in Jerusalem, fortified for defense of the city

06076 ophel

from 06075; n m; {See TWOT on 1662 @@ "1662a"} {See TWOT on 1662 @@ "1662b"}

AV-forts 1, strong hold 1, tower 1, variant for emerods 6; 9
1) hill, mound, fort, stronghold, Ophel

2) tumour, hemorrhoid

2 Chronicles 27 reports on King Uzziah’s work on the gate of the house of the Lord and on the wall of Ophel. The mention of these two projects in such close conjunction indicates that the site of the Temple was very near to the Ophel mound.

2 Chronicles 27:3 He built the high gate of the house of the LORD, and on the wall of Ophel (06077) he built much.

2 Chronicles 33 reports that King Manasseh built a wall outside the City of David (the fortress on Zion hill) and also encompassed the Ophel.

2 Chronicles 33:14 Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate, and compassed about Ophel (06077), and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.

As we have seen, the biblical phrase “City of David” is a reference to the fortress on the summit of Zion hill, the site of Davidic Jerusalem.

2 Samuel 5:7 Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David…9 So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward.

1 Chronicles 11:5 And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David…7 And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David.

According to 2 Chronicles, the wall that King Manasseh built was located outside Zion fortress and west of the Gihon Spring and Kidron Valley. The Gihon Spring was on the northeastern side of Davidic Jerusalem. Likewise, 2 Chronicles also informs us that the Fish Gate was in this same area. From these passages we learn that Manasseh built a wall from the fortress at the summit of Zion hill to the Fish Gate. And this wall was located just west of the Gihon Spring and the Kidron Valley. Without stopping, 2 Chronicles 33 continues by saying that Manasseh’s work on this wall also encompassed the Ophel mound. These passages make it clear that the Ophel was near to the wall, the Fish Gate, the fortress at the summit of Zion hill, and the Gihon Spring. All of these were within the area of Davidic Jerusalem. And according to Micah and 2 Chronicles the Temple was near to Ophel.

Josephus also informs us of the proximity of Ophel to the site of the Temple.

In the quote below, Josephus describes the walls of the city of Jerusalem that had been built by David and Solomon and by later kings (such as Manasseh perhaps). Here, he explains that the Temple site was very near the Ophel.

2. Now, of these three walls, the old one was hard to be taken, both by reason of the valleys, and of that hill on which it was built, and which was above them. But besides that great advantage, as to the place where they were situated, it was also built very strong; because David and Solomon, and the following kings, were very zealous about this work. Now that wall began on the north, at the tower called "Hippicus," and extended as far as the "Xistus," a place so called, and then, joining to the council-house, ended at the west cloister of the temple. But if we go the other way westward, it began at the same place, and extended through a place called "Bethso," to the gate of the Essens; and after that it went southward, having its bending above the fountain Siloam, where it also bends again towards the east at Solomon's pool, and reaches as far as a certain place which they called "Ophlas," where it was joined to the eastern cloister of the temple. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 4, Paragraph 2

In the reconstruction that occurred when the people of Israel returned from the Babylonian exile both the Temple and the walls of the city were rebuilt. The Book of Nehemiah chronicles these efforts. Nehemiah 3 records the reconstruction of sections of the city walls under various groups. Verse 26 notes that the area from the Water Gate to the Ophel was occupied by a group of Temple servants known as the Nethinim. From this verse it is evident that the Water Gate was next to the Ophel.

Nehemiah 3:26 Moreover the Nethinims (05411) dwelt in Ophel, unto the place over against the water gate toward the east, and the tower that lieth out.

05411 Nathiyn

from 05414; n m;

AV-Nethinims 18; 18
1) Nethinims

1a) temple slaves assigned to the Levites and priests for service in the sanctuary

In chapter 12, Nehemiah explains how, when work on the wall was finished, the leaders of Israel ascended the wall and walked around the walls of the city. According to Nehemiah’s account, the leaders divide into two parties. Both groups begin at the same location. One group, with Ezra at the lead, went in one direction around the city wall (v.32-36). The other group, under Nehemiah, went in the other direction (v.38). However, verse 40 reports that, after circumnavigating the city wall, the two groups met again at the Temple.

Nehemiah 12:31 Then I brought up the princes of Judah upon the wall, and appointed two great companies of them that gave thanks, whereof one went on the right hand upon the wall toward the dung gate: 32 And after them went Hoshaiah, and half of the princes of Judah, 33 And Azariah, Ezra, and Meshullam, 34 Judah, and Benjamin, and Shemaiah, and Jeremiah, 35 And certain of the priests’ sons with trumpets; namely, Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah, the son of Zaccur, the son of Asaph: 36 And his brethren, Shemaiah, and Azarael, Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethaneel, and Judah, Hanani, with the musical instruments of David the man of God, and Ezra the scribe before them. 37 And at the fountain gate, which was over against them, they went up by the stairs of the city of David, at the going up of the wall, above the house of David, even unto the water gate eastward. 38 And the other company of them that gave thanks went over against them, and I after them, and the half of the people upon the wall, from beyond the tower of the furnaces even unto the broad wall; 39 And from above the gate of Ephraim, and above the old gate, and above the fish gate, and the tower of Hananeel, and the tower of Meah, even unto the sheep gate: and they stood still in the prison gate. 40 So stood the two companies of them that gave thanks in the house of God, and I, and the half of the rulers with me: 41 And the priests; Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Michaiah, Elioenai, Zechariah, and Hananiah, with trumpets; 42 And Maaseiah, and Shemaiah, and Eleazar, and Uzzi, and Jehohanan, and Malchijah, and Elam, and Ezer. And the singers sang loud, with Jezrahiah their overseer. 43 Also that day they offered great sacrifices, and rejoiced: for God had made them rejoice with great joy: the wives also and the children rejoiced: so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even afar off.

Nehemiah records the routes that were taken by the two companies as they went around the city wall and then arrived at the Temple. Verse 37 finishes the course of Ezra’s group. According to the text, just before arriving at the Temple this group was heading east near the Water Gate. To get to the Water Gate they had to first go up the stairs that went up to the City of David (the fortress at the summit of Zion hill). After recording the arrival of Ezra’s group at the Water Gate, Nehemiah immediately moves to discuss the course of the second group (v. 38). This indicates that the route of the first group under Ezra ended shortly after ascending the stairs of the fortress at the summit of Zion hill and heading east from the area of the Water Gate. Nehemiah then charts the course of the second group (his group) around the city wall in verses 38-39. According to the text, this second group proceeded to the area of the Prison Gate. Verse 40 then immediately states that both companies stood in the Temple (the house of God).

From the way Nehemiah finishes his record of the courses taken by both groups we can assume that the Prison Gate and the Water Gate were near the Temple. We already know from 2 Chronicles 33:14 that the fortress at the summit of Zion hill was within Davidic Jerusalem to the west of the Gihon Spring. And Nehemiah indicates that both the summit of the Zion hill (where the fortress was) and the Water Gate were very near the Temple (Nehemiah 12:37). In fact, Nehemiah places the Water Gate between the Temple and the stairs that went up the hill to Zion fortress. Likewise, Nehemiah has shown that the area of the Ophel was adjacent to the Water Gate (Nehemiah 3:26). And Josephus has informed us that the Ophel was near the eastern wall of the Temple.

It is important to note that Tractate Middot, which contains the Mishnaic descriptions of the Temple, mentions the Water Gate. According to the Mishnah, the Water Gate was one of the gates to the Temple courts.

3. There were five gates to the Temple inclosure (Temple Mount): the two gates of Huldah from the south, which served for entrance and for exit; Kipponos from the west; Tadi from the north--it did not serve for anything; the eastern gate, upon which was a representation of the city of Shushan, and by it the high-priest who burned the Red Heifer, and all who assisted, went out upon the Mount of Olives. 4. There were seven gates in the court; three on the north, and three on the south, and one in the east. That in the south was the gate of burning; second to it, the gate of the firstborn; third to it, the water gate. That in the east was the gate of Nicanor, and two chambers belonged to it, one on the right hand, and one on the left--the one the chamber of Phineas, the wardrobe keeper, and the other the chamber of those who made the pancake offering. – Sketches of Jewish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim, Appendix 1 Massecheth, Middoth (Being the Mishnic Tractate Descriptive of the Measurements of the Temple), Perek II, http://www.bible-history.com/...

According to Nehemiah 12, Ezra’s group circumnavigated the newly rebuilt city walls. Before arriving in the Temple, they were last recorded as passing the Water Gate (Nehemiah 12:37). This makes sense because according to the Mishnah the Water Gate was one of the gates to the Temple courts. However, what is of interest is that Nehemiah 12:37 clearly states that just before Ezra’s group was at the Water Gate they went up the stairs to the City of David. As we know, the City of David was another name for the fortress at the summit of Zion hill which was within the area of Davidic Jerusalem on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge. Taken together, Nehemiah 12 and Tractate Middot clearly confirm that the Temple was right next to the fortress of Zion hill within the area of Davidic Jerusalem.

According to the Mishnah, the Water Gate was named because it was the gate through which water was brought from the Gihon Spring for use in the ritual of the water drawing during the feast of Tabernacles.

…why was its name called the water-gate? Because through it they brought the pitcher of water for pouring out for the "Feast of Tabernacles." – Sketches of Jewish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim, Appendix 1 Massecheth, Middoth (Being the Mishnic Tractate Descriptive of the Measurements of the Temple), Perek II, http://www.bible-history.com/...

As such, even the name of this Temple gate indicates that the Temple was located near the Gihon Spring, which 1 Kings 1 indicated was nearby the Fortress of Zion. Again, this biblical and rabbinical data strongly indicates that the Temple was south of the Moriah Platform in the area of Davidic Jerusalem.

Addionally, Nehemiah notes that the Temple was in close proximity with other important royal, civic, and sacerdotal structures that dated from the time of David and the early kings of Judah. Some of these structures were: the Pool of Siloam, the king’s garden, and the steps of the City of David, or Zion fortress (Nehemiah 3:15, Nehemiah 12:37), the sepulchres of David (Nehemiah 3:16), and the Ophel (Nehemiah 3:26). And we have seen that Micah 4:8 indicates that the Ophel was the stronghold of “the daughter of Zion,” the biblical term that was used to refer to the hill of the Temple.

As Easton’s Bible Dictionary and wikipedia note, the area that is identified today as the Ophel is directly south of the Moriah Platform extending into the area of Davidic Jerusalem.

Ophel – Hill; mound, the long, narrow, rounded promontory on the southern slope of the temple hill, between the Tyropoeon and the Kedron valley #2Ch 27:3 33:14 Ne 3:26,27 It was surrounded by a separate wall, and was occupied by the Nethinim after the Captivity. This wall has been discovered by the engineers of the Palestine Exploration Fund at the south-eastern angle of the temple area. It is 4 feet below the present surface. In #2Ki 5:24 this word is translated "tower" (R.V., "hill"), denoting probably some eminence near Elisha’s house. – Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Ophel – The City of David, also known as the Ophel is a narrow promontory beyond the southern edge of Jerusalem's Temple Mount and Old City, with the Tyropoeon Valley (valley of the cheesemakers) on its west, the Hinnom valley to the south, and the Kidron Valley on the east. – wikipedia.org

We know that the following sites are all south of the Moriah Platform: the Ophel, the fortress of Zion (Akra), and the Gihon Spring. Biblical and historical sources indicate a close proximity of the Temple to these and other ancient structures from the time of David and the early kings of Judah. Since the Temple was nearby all of these structures which were south of the Moriah Platform, the Temple site, too must have been south of the Moriah Platform. And this is exactly what the sources describe. The Temple was on a small hill that was lower than the peak of Zion hill, but within the ancient city walls and nearby the other structures and sites of Davidic Jerusalem.

Within a century of Nehemiah, just after the post-exilic rebuilding of Jerusalem, the Greek historian Hecateus of Abdera also reported that the Temple was in the middle of Jerusalem at that time.

Hecataeus of Abdera (or of Teos) was a Greek historian and sceptic philosopher who flourished in the 4th century BC. – wikipedia.org

22.…But for Hecateus of Abdera, who was both a philosopher,…Moreover, Hecateus declares again…Hecateus also produces…The same man describe our city Jerusalem also itself as of a most excellent structure, and very large, and inhabited from the most ancient times. He also discourses of the multitude of men in it, and of the construction of our temple, after the following manner: "There are many strong places and villages (says he) in the country of Judea; but one strong city there is, about fifty furlongs in circumference, which is inhabited by a hundred and twenty thousand men, or thereabouts; they call it Jerusalem. There is about the middle of the city a wall of stone, whose length is five hundred feet, and the breadth a hundred cubits, with double cloisters; wherein there is a square altar, not made of hewn stone, but composed of white stones gathered together, having each side twenty cubits long, and its altitude ten cubits. Hard by it is a large edifice, wherein there is an altar and a candlestick, both of gold, and in weight two talents: upon these there is a light that is never extinguished, either by night or by day. There is no image, nor any thing, nor any donations therein; nothing at all is there planted, neither grove, nor any thing of that sort. The priests abide therein both nights and days, performing certain purifications, and drinking not the least drop of wine while they are in the temple." – Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, 22

All of these important accounts from biblical and historical sources place the Temple in close proximity to other sites that we know are south of the Moriah Platform within in the area of Davidic Jerusalem. More importantly, we continue to see indications that the Temple was right next to the fortress at the peak of Zion hill. On the contrary, we have no evidence from the sources that the Temple was farther north, outside the city, and away from these important sites. The conclusion that we must draw from the historical evidence is that the Temple too was on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge, south of the Moriah Platform.

The Temple Was Not the Highest Point

Josephus and First Maccabees both indicated that the Temple was very near to the fortress at the summit of Zion hill (the southern portion of the Moriah ridge). This hill and the fortress at its peak were alternatively referred to as Akra. They were at a higher elevation than the Temple, which allowed the forces of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to hold out in the stronghold and harass the activities at the nearby Temple below. This bitter and trying experience led the Hasmonean kings (the Maccabees) to entirely demolish both the hill and the fortress at its summit. The result was that the hill of Davidic Jerusalem was brought down to ground level in order to prevent a similar travesty from ever recurring.

1. THE city of Jerusalem was fortified with three walls, on such parts as were not encompassed with unpassable valleys; for in such places it had but one wall. The city was built upon two hills, which are opposite to one another, and have a valley to divide them asunder; at which valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end. Of these hills, that which contains the upper city is much higher,….But the other hill, which was called "Acra," and sustains the lower city, is of the shape of a moon when she is horned; over against this there was a third hill, but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley. However, in those times when the Asamoneans reigned, they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the temple. They then took off part of the height of Acra, and reduced it to be of less elevation than it was before, that the temple might be superior to it. Now the Valley of the Cheesemongers, as it was called, and was that which we told you before distinguished the hill of the upper city from that of the lower, extended as far as Siloam; for that is the name of a fountain which hath sweet water in it, and this in great plenty also. But on the outsides, these hills are surrounded by deep valleys, and by reason of the precipices to them belonging on both sides they are every where unpassable. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 4 – THE DESCRIPTION OF JERUSALEM., Paragraph 1

7. But Simon, who was made high priest by the multitude, on the very first year of his high priesthood set his people free from their slavery under the Macedonians, and permitted them to pay tribute to them no longer; which liberty and freedom from tribute they obtained after a hundred and seventy years (14) of the kingdom of the Assyrians, which was after Seleucus, who was called Nicator, got the dominion over Syria. Now the affection of the multitude towards Simon was so great, that in their contracts one with another, and in their public records, they wrote, "in the first year of Simon the benefactor and ethnarch of the Jews;" for under him they were very happy, and overcame the enemies that were round about them; for Simon overthrew the city Gazara, and Joppa, and Jamhis. He also took the citadel of Jerusalem by siege, and cast it down to the ground, that it might not be any more a place of refuge to their enemies when they took it, to do them a mischief, as it had been till now. And when he had done this, he thought it their best way, and most for their advantage, to level the very mountain itself upon which the citadel happened to stand, that so the temple might be higher than it. And indeed, when he had called the multitude to an assembly, he persuaded them to have it so demolished, and this by putting them in mind what miseries they had suffered by its garrison and the Jewish deserters, and what miseries they might hereafter suffer in case any foreigner should obtain the kingdom, and put a garrison into that citadel. This speech induced the multitude to a compliance, because he exhorted them to do nothing but what was for their own good: so they all set themselves to the work, and leveled the mountain, and in that work spent both day and night without any intermission, which cost them three whole years before it was removed, and brought to an entire level with the plain of the rest of the city. After which the temple was the highest of all the buildings, now the citadel, as well as the mountain whereon it stood, were demolished. And these actions were thus performed under Simon. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book 13, Chapter 6

Acra – The Acra was a fortress or citadel built in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of the Seleucid Empire, after his conquest of the city in 168 BCE. According to Josephus^[1], it stood on a hill higher than the Temple and was garrisoned by Greek soldiers…The first stage of the liberation of Jerusalem by the Maccabees in 164 BC was incomplete, as they gained possession of the city and the temple but the Hellenistic garrison and local supporters of the Seleucids held out in the Acra for a considerable time. It withstood the efforts of both Judas and Jonathan Maccabeus to subjagate it, eventually yielding to Simon Maccabeus in 141 BC. After reduction of the fortress the Maccabees demolished the Acra and leveled the hill on which it had stood – wikipedia.org

This is the reality we observe today. We observe the result of the Hasmonean demolition of Zion hill. There is no high peak south of the Moriah Platform as there was in the times of the Davidic kings.

We can use this information on the elevations of these important sites in order to help identify the site of the Temple in terms of the topography of Jerusalem that we see today. In order to do so we must also include historical descriptions of the elevation of one other important structure on the Moriah ridge. That structure is the northern fortress that was built during the final centuries of the Old Testament period.

Josephus informs us that after they destroyed the fortress on Zion hill, the Hasmoneans built a new stronghold north of the Temple.

There was a fortress, which we hear of in the Book of Maccabees and in the Books of Josephus Flavius. That one was called in Hebrew, Beera, or in Greek, Baris. The walled fortress, which was already quite an old thing, but it was remodeled and remade since it was a palace of the Maccabean kings. It was really of great importance. All the great events of the second Temple period to the time of Herod the Great occurred in this Baris, which was a very majestic fortress. We’ve got good descriptions of it. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 43 minutes and 34 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

In earlier times, this fortress was called the Baris, but when Herod remodeled it he renamed it Antonia.

Antonia Fortress – The Antonia Fortress was a military barracks built by Herod the Great in Jerusalem on the site of earlier Ptolemaic and Hasmonean strongholds, named after Herod's patron Mark Antony. The fortress was built at the eastern end of the great wall of the city (the second wall), on the northeastern side of the city, near the temple… - wikipedia.org

This new fortress was constructed around a rocky summit. And like the fortress of Zion hill, this new fortress was higher in elevation than the site of the Temple.

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, both for ornament, and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three (14). There was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod's palace; but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8

…he gave order that the whole army should take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have said already, which overlooked the temple; (10) – Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 5

According to these sources, the site of the Temple must be noticeably lower than both the western ridge (called the Upper City) and the rocky peak on the Moriah ridge where the Baris fortress (Antonia) was later built. Let us consider these topographic and historical facts in light of theories which place the Temple somewhere on the Moriah Platform. We have created several diagrams to help us visualize these topographical and geographical facts concerning the elevations of these important sites. (See Moriah Ridge Diagram, Moriah Elevation Diagram, and elevation_cross-section.)

The traditional theory locates the Temple at the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock site is lower in elevation than the western ridge. And there is a slightly higher peak to its north on the Moriah ridge at the location of the Umariyah school (the traditional site of Antonia).

However, the difference in height between the Dome of the Rock and the “Umariyah” peak is so negligible (less than 10 meters) that it leaves little room for any peak of intermediate height between the two, such as the former hill of Zion. A look at our diagram showing the cross-section of Jerusalem illustrates this difficulty. (See elevation_cross-section.) This illustration can be compared with photographs of the Moriah ridge taken from the summit of the Mount of Olives. (See Moriah Ridge 1, Moriah Ridge 2, Moriah Ridge 3, and Moriah Ridge 4.) As such, identifying the Dome of the Rock as the hill of the Temple does not fit well with these historic descriptions of the elevation differences between these important structures. Two observations make this plain.

First, we must keep in mind that the peak for Zion hill was the middle height of the three peaks. (See elevation_diagram.) If the peak of Zion was higher than the Dome of the Rock but lower than the peak beneath the Umariyah School all three peaks would be at a very similar elevation in regard to the rest of the Moriah ridge. However, historical data indicates that they were noticeably distinct from one another and other elevated sites in the area. Therefore, this scenario does not fit well with the historical descriptions. To the contrary, the historical data indicates that we should expect the sites to display a greater degree of elevation differences. Finding a pattern of sites matching the historical data would require looking for the sites of Antonia and the Temple that are farther south than the Umariyah School and the Dome of the Rock respectively. (Although it should be noted that elevation differences between the Dome of the Rock peak and the southern portion of the Moriah ridge are significant enough that the Dome of the Rock peak could have been the location of Antonia.)

Second, according to historical descriptions, the Hasmoneans leveled the height of Zion hill enough to make it lower than the site of the Temple. If the Dome of the Rock is taken to be the site of the Temple then the Hasmoneans went well beyond simply making the Temple higher in elevation. Instead, they reduced Zion hill in an excessive manner and made it farther below the height necessary to simply give the Temple a superior elevation. Again, a look at our cross-section of Jerusalem reveals this difficulty. (See elevation_cross-section.) Today, the area of Davidic Jerusalem is very far below the height of the Dome of the Rock. This would mean that the Hasmoneans reduced the height of Davidic Jerusalem well beyond what their purpose required. Again, if the Temple was located within the confines of the Moriah Platform, then what we see today does not fit the historical descriptions.

Third, the peak of Zion hill was originally higher than the site of the Temple. And yet Zion hill was referred as “the Lower City.” This designation indicates that the peak of Zion hill was notably lower than the Upper City and the northern portion of the Moriah ridge where the Moriah Platform sits today. However, if we assume that the Temple was located at the Dome of the Rock then we must imagine that the peak of Zion hill was quite high in order to be superior to the Dome of the Rock’s elevation. In order to be higher than the Dome of the Rock peak, the Zion hill peak would have been considerably closer to the height of the Upper City rather than significantly lower. Such a height does not work with the historical description of Zion hill as the Lower City. Because of this difficulty, the Temple itself must have been at a lower elevation than the Dome of the Rock. This would require that it was south of the Moriah Platform.

All of these three issues of elevation call into question the identification of the Dome of the Rock as the site of the Temple. These difficulties apply equally to other views which locate the Temple within the confines of the Moriah Platform. However, we should note some additional difficulties for the other Moriah Platform views of the Temple’s location.

The northern Moriah Platform view offered by Asher Kaufman does not place the Temple on any peak. Instead, the Temple would sit in a valley or a plain between two higher points nearby. This is not what the sources describe. Additionally, placing the Temple north of the Dome of the Rock would require that the Temple was even farther outside the area of Davidic Jerusalem and even farther removed from the important structures south of the Moriah Platform that biblical and historical sources inform us the Temple was near to.

Similarly, south of the Dome of the Rock the Moriah ridge begins to slope downward. There is no peak south of the Dome of the Rock beneath the Moriah Platform. The view that the Temple was south of the Dome of the Rock but still on the Moriah Platform does not provide any relationship to historical descriptions that the Temple sat on top of an elevated peak lower than that of Zion and that of the Baris (Antonia Fortress).

Contrary to the Moriah Platform Views, historical data indicate that the Temple was lower than both the western ridge and the rocky peak on the Moriah ridge where the Baris (later Antonia Fortress) was built. Modern conventions cannot accommodate these historical facts. Locating the Temple at the site of the Dome of the Rock contradicts descriptions from the sources either by asserting that Temple was originally higher than Zion hill or that all three peaks (Zion, the Temple, and Baris/Antonia) were close in elevation. Topographical difficulties indicate that the peaks of Antonia and the Temple are further south than conventional thinking would hold. Elevation features of the Moriah ridge would point toward locations further south on the ridge.

The Location of the Baris

An important note must be made concerning the history of the new fortress that was built north of the Temple. Although this fortress was largely renovated by Herod the Great, it was originally built by the Jewish patriarchs, the Hasmoneans. For nearly a century or more this fortress served as a Jewish palace and a stronghold of the Hasmonean priest-kings of Israel. As such, Jewish architecture and artifacts would be expected at the former site of the Hasmonean fortress. Since both the Temple and this northern fortress have Jewish history, artifacts or archeological remains exhibiting a Jewish nature found at any site cannot sufficiently determine whether the site was the location of the Temple or the Jewish stronghold of the Hasmonean priest-kings.

However, while Jewish architecture cannot be used to distinguish the site of the Temple from the site of the Hasmonean Baris, other facts about the Baris are useful for several reasons.

First, as Josephus states, Herod renovated the Hasmonean fortress (tower) because it was conveniently located. This indicates that the site of the Antonia and the site of the Baris were the same. In the third quote below, Josephus indicates that the Baris and the Antonia were the same fortress. Herod simply refortified the earlier Hasmonean stronghold and renamed it, but it was the same structure.

…the tower of Antonia, the citadel so called, and that on the occasion following: There was one of the [high] priests, named Hyrcanus; and as there were many of that name, he was the first of them; this man built a tower near the temple, and when he had so done, he generally dwelt in it, and had these vestments with him, because it was lawful for him alone to put them on, and he had them there reposited when he went down into the city, and took his ordinary garments; the same things were continued to be done by his sons, and by their sons after them. But when Herod came to be king, he rebuilt this tower, which was very conveniently situated, in a magnificent manner; and because he was a friend to Antonius, he called it by the name of Antonia. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 4

1. A sign of which you have in the great cloisters that were erected about the temple, and the citadel which was on its north side. The cloisters he built from the foundation, but the citadel (32) he repaired at a vast expense; nor was it other than a royal palace, which he called Antonia, in honor of Antony. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 21 OF THE [TEMPLE AND] CITIES THAT WERE BUILT BY HEROD AND ERECTED FROM THE VERY FOUNDATIONS; AS ALSO OF THOSE OTHER EDIFICES THAT WERE ERECTED BY HIM; AND WHAT MAGNIFICENCE HE SHOWED TO FOREIGNERS; AND HOW FORTUNE WAS IN ALL THINGS FAVORABLE TO HIM.

4. …and put Aristobulus's wife and sons under restraint in Antonia, which was a fortress that joined to the north part of the temple. It was, as I have already said, of old called the Citadel; but afterwards got the name of Antonia, when Antony was [lord of the East], just as the other cities, Sebaste and Agrippias, had their names changed, and these given them from Sebastus and Agrippa. But Alexandra died before she could punish Aristobulus for his disinheriting his brother, after she had reigned nine years. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 5, Paragraphs 4

But for the tower itself, when Herod the king of the Jews had fortified it more firmly than before, in order to secure and guard the temple, he gratified Antonius, who was his friend, and the Roman ruler, and then gave it the name of the Tower of Antonia. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book 15, Chapter 10

This historical data indicates that Herod renovated the Hasmonean stronghold and then renamed it.

Second, as Jerusalem archeologist Dan Bahat confirms, the Moriah Platform that we see today was also built by Herod.

Archeologically speaking, the Herodian layers which were discovered adjacent to the Temple Mount [the Moriah Platform] are articulated properly and we say this from pure archeological reasons. We are able to ascribe the present Temple Mount [Moriah Platform] to Herod the Great. There is no question about it. – Dr. Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 26:50-31:36 minutes, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...

When you come to Jerusalem you go up to the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount which you see today, the western wall where Jews are praying, is again all of Herodian work. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 22 minutes and 25 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Third, according to Bahat the location of the Hasmonean Baris has been identified with precision and certainty.

In the quotes below Dan Bahat explains three important facts regarding the Hasmonean stronghold called the Baris and the Temple mount in the time of the Hasmoneans. First, he attests to the fact that Josephus reports that this structure was remodeled by Herod. He even agrees with Josephus’ assertions that the Antonia was just a renovation and enlargement by Herod of the previous Maccabean structure known as the Baris. Second, he repeatedly indicates that the location of the Baris has been identified with precision through the discovery of various architectural remains. Third, Bahat states that the Baris must have been outside of the Hasmonean Temple mount. This historical fact is clear since the Baris and the Temple were contemporary structures that both existed in the same period. Obviously, the two did not occupy the same site. And fourth, we should note that Bahat is also taking into consideration the same topographical issues that we have been attempting to account for as well.

There was a fortress, which we hear of in the Book of Maccabees and in the Books of Josephus Flavius. That one was called in Hebrew, Birah, or in Greek, Baris. The walled fortress, which was already quite an old thing, but it was remodeled and remade since it was a palace of the Maccabean kings. It was really of great importance. All the great events of the second Temple period to the time of Herod the Great occurred in this Baris, which was a very majestic fortress. We’ve got good descriptions of it. And so we can say one thing. Now, through all the aqueducts, and cisterns, and remains of things, I believe that we have come to the point where we can say that these are the last remains of this fort, which we always believed disappeared forever. With our walks along the western wall, we are able to say, that we’ve got, I will say, at least the very end of the tale of the end of that fortress, but still we are able to locate it with precision. Another thing, this fortress, must have been outside the Temple Mount. Because there was no possibility that a thought where all in the Hellenistic style, all kind of things like murders, assassination, and bargaining, politics, dirty stuff, intrigues, all that will be on the Temple Mount. The fort was outside of the Temple Mount in order to protect the Temple Mount and in order really, to serve as the seat of the royal family of the Maccabees. The result is, in any rate, if we are able to define the precise location of that Baris, one thing I can say, we’ve got a negative thing. I will say the part where the Baris was, was outside the Temple Mount. And if we take into consideration also the topographical data which we’ve got on the Temple Mount, we can say another very clear thing, which is, we can say in precision where the Holy Temple Mount was not or which area was outside the Holy Temple Mount. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 43 minutes and 34 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

We have found it to be pierced with cisterns, remains of walls, foundation traces of walls. And so with great amount of certainty we say that his is where the Baris fortress was. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, after 57 minutes and 5 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

As we have just seen, according to Dan Bahat, the remains of the Hasmonean Baris have been located with precision and certainty. This brings us to our fourth important point concerning the Baris.

Fourth, in the next quote, Bahat explains where the site of the Baris was. Using Bahat today’s standard terminology, Bahat refers to the Moriah Platform as “the Temple Mount.” According to Bahat, the Baris was located within the confines of the Moriah Platform that we see today.

What we can say is, that there was, at a certain part, which is today included in the Temple Mount, there was a fortress, which we hear of in the Book of Maccabees and in the Books of Josephus Flavius. That one was called in Hebrew, Birah, or in Greek, Baris. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 43 minutes and 34 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/...

These historical facts create a very serious problem for the Moriah Platform view. First, Herod created Antonia out of the site of the historic Maccabean fortress known as the Baris. He renovated and enlarged this fortress on the same convenient site. Therefore, Antonia Fortress was a Herodian structure. Second, the Moriah Platform itself is a Herodian structure. And third, the remains of the Hasmonean Baris have been found beneath the large Herodian platform that is commonly referred to today as “the Temple Mount” (Moriah Platform). From this it is clear that the Moriah Platform is a large Herodian structure built over the site of the Hasmonean Baris. This indicates that the Moriah Platform is the Herodian expansion of the Baris, which Herod renamed Antonia. In other words, the Moriah Platform is the Herodian Antonia. Since this is the case, then the Temple must be located south of this large Herodian structure. If the Moriah Platform is the Antonia, then it is not the location of the Herodian Temple Mount. Instead, the Temple would be to its south.

Bahat recognizes the problem that these historical and archeological facts create for his claim that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform. Since the Baris was located beneath the Herodian platform (that Bahat identifies as the Herodian Temple Mount), Bahat must completely contradict Josephus’ statement that Antonia was an enlargement of the Baris. In the next quote Bahat contradicts Josephus’ eyewitness record in order to avoid the clear conclusion demanded by these facts. Rather than accepting Josephus’ account that Herod simply renovated, enlarged, and renamed the earlier Hasmonean fortress, Bahat instead speculates that Herod built the Antonia in a different location to the north of the Moriah Platform.

In the quote below we should notice two things. First, Bahat speculates that Antonia was moved farther north and was not built on the same site as the earlier Hasmonean fortress (the Baris). Second, the need to conclude that Antonia was relocated is due to the fact that the Baris is beneath the Moriah Platform which was built by Herod.

When this fortress was slightly, almost on one side entirely, on one side a bit, shaved away by Herod the Great’s activities to level and create the Temple Mount, Herod built a substitute, which you will be all familiarized with and that one was the Antonia, which is so famous because it is being believed to be the site where Pontius Pilate tried Christ. And therefore, actually Antonia is nothing but a substitute further to the north of the Baris. The Antonia is then built somewhere in the northern end of that hill and not around the entire hill as the Baris was. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Again, these facts presents a serious dilemma for views which place the Temple on the Moriah Platform. The Moriah Platform is a Herodian structure built on the site of the Baris. This requires the conclusion that the Moriah Platform is the Fortress of Antonia. If this is the case, then (as Bahat himself is aware) this structure cannot be the site of the Temple. For the Baris was outside the Temple to its north. And likewise, the Temple was south of Antonia. From these facts, it necessarily follows that if the Moriah Platform is Herod’s enlargement over the site of the Baris, then it is not the site of the Temple.

By contrast, Bahat’s more convoluted explanation in which Herod effectively relocated the fortress conflicts greatly with the historical record. The historical evidence is that Antonia was an enlargement and renovation of the earlier Hasmonean Baris. The two fortresses were built on the same site around a high rock. Herod simply renovated and then renamed the earlier Hasmonean structure. There is no historical evidence that Herod destroyed the Baris and then constructed Antonia on a different site as Bahat speculates. In this case, Bahat’s speculation plainly contradicts direct historical, eyewitness accounts. The only reason to discard the historical evidence is a desire to locate the Temple on the Moriah Platform. But such an approach constitutes circular reasoning and very poor archeological and scientific methodology. The evidence must be allowed to speak for itself without out tailoring it to fit our preconceived preferences. In light of this, the Moriah Platform must be identified as the site of the Baris (later Antonia) Fortress. As such, the Temple must have been located to its south.