biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

The Dimensions of the Temple Don’t Fit the Moriah Platform

Not only did the Moriah Platform survive while the Temple was destroyed, but the Moriah Platform does not match the dimensions of the Temple that are provided by the sources. Josephus, a first century, Jewish, eyewitness of the Temple, records that Herod’s Temple mount was a square with each side equal to one stade (approximately 600 feet, 182 meters).

3. When this work [for the foundation] was done in this manner, and joined together as part of the hill itself to the very top of it, he wrought it all into one outward surface, and filled up the hollow places which were about the wall, and made it a level on the external upper surface, and a smooth level also. This hill was walled all round, and in compass four furlongs, [the distance of] each angle containing in length a furlong: but within this wall, and on the very top of all, there ran another wall of stone also, having, on the east quarter, a double cloister, of the same length with the wall; in the midst of which was the temple itself. This cloister looked to the gates of the temple; and it had been adorned by many kings in former times; and round about the entire temple were fixed the spoils taken from barbarous nations; all these had been dedicated to the temple by Herod, with the addition of those he had taken from the Arabians. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book 15, Chapter 10

4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 5, Paragraph 4

Likewise, according to the Mishnah, written 130 years after Josephus, the Temple was a square measuring 500 cubits.

1. The Temple inclosure (the Temple Mount) was 500 cubits by 500 cubits;… 5. The Court of the women was 135 cubits long by 135 cubits broad, - 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/...

There are several important points of interest concerning these two descriptions of the Temple. First, these are the only descriptions of the Temple’s shape and dimensions that we have. Second, Josephus is describing the entire Herodian Temple mount structure. Third, and most importantly, both of these Jewish sources report that the Temple was a square having four equal sides. This third fact is important because the Moriah Platform is most obviously not a square.

The Moriah Platform is a long trapezoid that is three times the size of the square Temple mount as it is described in these two ancient Jewish records. It is both wider and longer than the Jewish records report. Its western wall measures 488 meters (1601 feet), the eastern wall 470 meters (1541 feet), the northern wall is 315 meters (1033 feet), and the southern wall is 280 meters (918 feet). Its total area is about 35.5 acres.

Temple Mount – The trapezium shaped platform measures 488m along the west, 470m along the east, 315m along the north and 280m along the south, giving a total area of approximately 150,000 m² (35.5 acres). – wikipedia.org

Josephus’ describes a Temple mount of only 10 acres. And the Mishnaic dimensions would include around 12 to 14 acres. The basic fact is that the historical documents describing the Temple mount do not at all match the Moriah Platform in any way in any direction. Even the shape is wrong.

In their presentations on the location of the Temple, Tuvia Sagiv and Dan Bahat both remark on the inconsistency that exists between historic descriptions of Herod’s Temple mount and the Moriah Platform.

The first thing which is very astonishing is the fact of the area itself which we see now. See this is the archeological evidence. This is the court nowadays. Here you see the dimension of the Temple Mount according to the Mishnah. And here you see the dimension of the area according to Josephus Flavius.…Josephus Flavius when he described the Temple Mount of Herod, he is talking about something which is even smaller than what’s written in the Mishnah. He’s talking about stadia by stadia, which means 2[00] meter by 2[00] meters, 300 feet by 300 feet, no excuse me 600 feet by 600 feet. That’s all. And what we have here is about 500 meters which is 1500 feet. It doesn’t fit, at all. And this is not the holy place, he’s talking about Herod’s Temple. And he says more than that, that here was the great basilica. It was one stadia, which was about 200 meters. And now the area itself here is about 300 meter. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t fit.…The fact is, describing the Temple Mount according to Josephus Flavius in the time of Herod was only 200 by 200 meters. And the shape of the area is different than what we see nowadays. The area today is rectangular, trapezoid, rectangular. According to the sources, both of them it was a square. So, what’s going on? That’s one question. - Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 7 minutes and 18 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

What is important to see is that the area itself is nowadays about 150 dunums [37.5 acres]. And what’s written in the sources is about a third of it. The area today is three times larger than what’s mentioned in the sources. So, is this the same area that’s written in the sources? Is the area, the Moriah court, is the Temple Mount? I’m not the first one to ask this question. Because it’s seen. It’s a two dimensional question. You can see it immediately. In the moment we have the survey which was made by Warren which was made in the last century. We can see that there is a problem. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 43 minutes and 10 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

…the Mishnah talks about the Temple Mount. It begins by saying that the Temple Mount was 500 cubits and 500 cubits. That’s how it starts. And I can tell you, let’s say, in fit, in order to make it easy for you, about 750 feet and 750 feet. The Temple Mount today is over 1600 feet long. And it is about 900 feet wide or 350 feet wide. Why did the Mishnah have to minimize the Temple Mount and to talk about a smaller Temple Mount than it actually is? This is really the problem. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 14 minutes and 53 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/...

Sagiv also comments on the inadequacy of the conventional answer to this geometric and spatial inconsistency. As Sagiv points out, the conventional solution is to suggest that the sources do not describe the whole platform, but only the holy portion of it.

So, the conventional answer to this question was very simple. What’s written in the sources, the Jewish sources, is about the Holy Temple. And what we see now today is the enlargement of the Temple which was made by Herod the Great. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 43 minutes and 10 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

Interpreting the Mishnah’s 500 cubits as 750 feet, Dan Bahat himself offers this conventional explanation to the discrepancy between the dimensions of the Moriah Platform and the Temple mount. In the first quote below, Bahat states that the square referred to in the Mishnah is a reference to the holy precinct. In the second quote, Bahat explains that the Moriah Platform (which doesn’t fit the Mishnah’s description of the square-shaped holy precinct) is the court of the Gentiles.

So, it definitely does not compare to any Temple who can be, even according to the Mishnah, 700 feet and 700 feet. It cannot be. We have to look for somebody who built a square Temple Mount. This is the problem. Because if the Mishnah tells us about the Temple Mount. It speaks about a complete square, 750 and 750. The only time when a fraction of the squarish Temple Mount, or squarish Holy precinct, shows up is somewhere in the third/second century BC. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 16 minutes and 51 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

The Herodian addition to the Temple Mount equals the outer court of Josephus Flavius equal the gentiles court of the Gospels. You see it is as simple as that. I hope I am right. It is as simple as that. – Dr. Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 26:50-31:36 minutes, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...

Can we have an equation saying that the court of the Gentiles, which is mentioned by the Gospels, is the outer court of the Gospels, and it is the addition of Herod the Great to the older Temple Mount. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 34 minutes and 11 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/...

According to Bahat’s assertion, the Moriah Platform represents the area of the court of the Gentiles that was added by Herod. And the square-shaped holy precinct of the Temple was within the larger area of the Herodian platform. The bulk of Bahat’s presentation involves using archeology to identify a particular square of 500 cubits somewhere within the confines of the much larger area of the Moriah Platform.

We should note that Bahat only accounts for the discrepancy between the Mishnah’s description of the Temple and the Moriah Platform. His statements are an example of the conventional explanation. Again, the conventional view is that the Moriah Platform doesn’t match the Mishnaic description of a square Temple because the Moriah Platform was the Herodian addition to the Temple mount. According to this line of thinking the Moriah Platform conforms to Herod’s court for Gentiles. In accordance with this, those who follow the conventional view simply seek to identify the smaller, squarish Temple mount somewhere within the confines of the larger, trapezoidal Moriah Platform.

Most of the archeologist, scientists, they have taken the facts, how it looks, they have taken the literature sources put them all together one another and say, “Alright, the area itself is bigger than what’s written in the sources, so let us try and find the where is the place of the Temple Mount. Maybe it’s in the south. Maybe in the center. Maybe in the north. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 5 minutes and 38 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

However, as Tuvia Sagiv points out, the conventional explanation fails to address the inconsistency between Temple dimensions provided in the sources and the Moriah Platform. Specifically, it fails to account for the fact that Josephus Flavius directly states that Herod’s Temple mount (not just the Jewish portion of the Temple) was only one stade in each direction (approximately 600 feet square.) (Note, in the first quote below Sagiv uses the more modern English measurement of the furlong as 656 feet square. In the second quote he uses the ancient measure used Heroditus of 600 feet. Whichever measurement is used for Josephus’ stade, Herod’s Temple was about 3 times smaller than the Moriah Platform.)

So, the conventional answer to this question was very simple. What’s written in the sources, the Jewish sources, is about the Holy Temple. And what we see now today is the enlargement of the Temple which was made by Herod the Great. Makes sense? But the problem is, when we go back to Josephus Flavius who is describing Herod’s temple, he’s talking about only 200 by 200 meters [656 feet by 656 feet]. It doesn’t work. This is one question. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 43 minutes and 10 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

The first thing which is very astonishing is the fact of the area itself which we see now. See this is the archeological evidence. This is the court nowadays. Here you see the dimension of the Temple Mount according to the Mishnah. And here you see the dimension of the area according to Josephus Flavius. As you heard from Dan Bahat the answer of the question, “How come this is larger and bigger than what’s written in the sources?” is that what’s written in the Mishnah is the holy place, the holy court, but Herod enlarged the area. But if you go back to Josephus Flavius when he described the Temple Mount of Herod, he is talking about something which is even smaller than what’s written in the Mishnah. He’s talking about stadia by stadia, which means 2[00] meter by 2[00] meters, 300 feet by 300 feet, no excuse me 600 feet by 600 feet. That’s all. And what we have here is about 500 meters which is 1500 feet. It doesn’t fit, at all. And this is not the holy place, he’s talking about Herod’s Temple. And he says more than that, that here was the great basilica. It was one stadia, which was about 200 meters. And now the area itself here is about 300 meter. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t fit. So, it’s not enough to say that according to the Mishnah it’s something holy. That Herod enlarged the area. The fact is, describing the Temple Mount according to Josephus Flavius in the time of Herod was only 200 by 200 meters. And the shape of the area is different than what we see nowadays. The area today is rectangular, trapezoid, rectangular. According to the sources, both of them it was a square. So, what’s going on? That’s one question. - Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 7 minutes and 18 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

As Sagiv demonstrates, the conventional answer doesn’t work. The Moriah Platform cannot be identified as the outer court of Herod’s Temple mount because Josephus provides dimensions for that outer court. It was a square of one stade (approximately 600 feet) in each direction.

After his presentation, Asher Kaufman was asked to respond to the fact that the Moriah Platform doesn’t fit with the dimensions provided in the Mishnah for the Temple Mount. First, notice that Kaufman’s response both fails to address and also contradicts Josephus’ statement that the Herodian Temple was, in fact, a square. And second, notice that Kaufman’s reponse fails to address the fact that the Moriah Platform is three times the area described in either Josephus or the Mishnah (regardless of what shape the Temple mount was).

Question: How do you reconcile the concept of a square Temple Mount with the diagram you had, the 500 meters by 500 meters?

Kaufman: All good questions. The 500 by 500 cubits, we’re not told it is length by breadth. With regard to the, Middot is a very document. It doesn’t use words unnecessarily. With regard to the court of the women, which is square it says 135 cubits length, 135 cubits breadth. With regard to the outer court here, the outer sanctified court, 500 cubits by 500 cubits, it doesn’t say length by breadth. Now, we are used to the terminology, say 100 yards, 100 square yards, or 100 yards square. The Mishnah, which is a later publication than the bible, the Old Testament, and Middot is part of the Mishnah. The language of the Mishnah doesn’t know the terminology of square cubit or cubit square. It defines area in the following way, a length times the same length. So, 500 cubits by 500 cubits doesn’t mean to say it is square. It can be any shape whatsoever. And Maimonides realized this. I can prove with many sources. Many rabbinical sources whereby it’s quite clear it doesn’t refer to a square. So, 100 cubits by 100 cubits is a definition of square area, of area square, without defining its shape. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 53 minutes and 26 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

According to Kaufman, stipulating “a length times the same length” was simply the way in which the Mishnah denoted the total area of a structure. For instance, “100 cubits by 100 cubits is a definition of square area.” Consequently, Kaufman is arguing that a description of “500 cubits by 500 cubits” simply refers to the structure having a total area equal to the area of 500 x 500 cubits, or 250,000 cubits square. The length and width don’t have to be 500 cubits each. Instead, as Kaufman explains, the length and width could be any dimensions that together create an area effectively equal to 250,000 cubits square. In contrast for illustration purposes, Dan Bahat indicated earlier that 500 cubits is equivalent to about 750 feet. So, an area of 500 cubits would be an area of 750 feet by 750 feet, or 562,500 feet square.

If we average the north and south walls to one another and also the east and west walls, the trapezoidal shape of the Moriah is roughly 1,570 feet (479 meters) by 976 feet (297.5 meters). That’s an area of 1,532,320 square feet (1,021,547 cubits) in contrast to an area of 562,500 square feet (250,000 cubits).

As we can see Kaufman’s attempt to explain the fact that the Moriah Platform doesn’t fit the dimensions provided in the Jewish texts (Josephus and the Mishnah) is totally inadequate and fails completely.

Even if Kaufman’s assertions were true, two problems still remain. First, rearranging the shape from a square to a trapezoid only results in a trapezoid that is the wrong size. Second, Josephus doesn’t just give measurements for length, width, and are but the actual shape as well.

According to Josephus the Herodian addition to the Temple mount was a space of only one stade on each side and it was a square.

As Sagiv explains, Herod’s enlargement of the Temple increased its size to approximately 600 feet or so in each direction. The Moriah Platform is over three times that size. So, the conventional view fails to account for the historical facts and cannot explain the discrepancy between the dimensions of the Moriah Platform and the dimensions of the Temple that are provided in the sources. This again leaves us with the conclusion that the Moriah Platform cannot be identified as the Temple mount.

Additional problems for the conventional view can be seen by looking at the Mishnaic descriptions of the Temple mount. The Mishnah describes a Temple mount of 500 cubits.

Some scholars, like Dan Bahat, take the Mishnah to use the common cubit and therefore, they reckon the Temple mount to equal approximately 750 square feet.

…the Mishnah talks about the Temple Mount. It begins by saying that the Temple Mount was 500 cubits and 500 cubits. That’s how it starts. And I can tell you, let’s say, in fit, in order to make it easy for you, about 750 feet and 750 feet. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 14 minutes and 53 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

So you can tell me, take 500 cubits, let’s say 750 feet and draw a line from here to there and you’ll have the east-west lengths of the Temple Mount. Which is true….So, this is the north-eastern wall is common to the two. We’ve got the northern, we’ve got to measure 750 down to here, 750 down to here.…Exactly as we’ve got the mishnaic description. – Dr. Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 36:50-38:49 minutes, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/store/...

However, other scholars, like Leen Ritmeyer, use the royal cubit. They therefore conclude that the Mishnah describes a Temple mount of around 861 square feet. Ritmeyer, like Bahat, then proceeds to find a 500 cubit square area somewhere on the Moriah Platform.

Ritmeyer happened to notice that first of all this bottom step is pre-Herodian that caught his attention….His approach was not to locate the Temple, to locate the Temple Mount. This 500 cubit square platform. He also noticed, since this is parallel to this, doing a perpendicular from that corner also as he followed that crossed some rocks that are what we call scarps they had been carved to fit that line. There apparently was something along here. He intersects this wall and notice that there is a slight offset just to the north and he conjectures that there may have been a tower here. Not bad, okay, the Golden Gate’s roughly here. He notices that this distance from here to here is exactly 861 feet, which turns out if you use 20.61 centimeters as a cubit, which is the royal cubit, a cubit plus a span, a legal cubit, tip to elbow plus one hand width. That was called the royal cubit. This turns out to be exactly 500 royal cubits. Interesting. As he moves down here he notices this wall right here. If you survey it carefully, it has a bend in it, 1.6 degees. Not much but measureable. He notices that the distance from here to here is exactly 861 feet, 500 cubits. That causes him to circumscribe a square, which causes him to believe that this, in effect, is the original Temple Mount. You see the problem is that the Temple is about a third of the present area. We’re not exactly sure where it is….It’s in the April issue of Biblical Archeological Review. – Chuck Missler presenting Leen Ritmeyer’s position, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 34 minutes and 35 seconds, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...

Both Dan Bahat and Leen Ritmeyer use the Mishnaic dimensions of the Temple mount. However, both men use different measurements for the cubit. Which dimension of the cubit is correct? Certainly, the Mishnah was using one of these lengths for the cubit and not the other. But which one?

Likewise, it should be noted that Dan Bahat, Tuvia Sagiv, and Asher Kaufman all report to have found a 500 cubit square on the Moriah Platform where the Jewish Temple once stood. And each of these men uses the same interpretation of the Mishnaic dimensions. Yet each has identified a completely different 750-foot square area on the Moriah Platform as the site of the Temple. Kaufman has found a 750-foot square area to the north of the Dome of the Rock. Bahat has identified another 750-square around the Dome of the Rock. And Sagiv points to yet another 750-foot square area south of the Dome of the Rock. All three men are also using archeological features that exist on the Moriah Platform today. And yet for some reason each of these scholars does not find the archeological alignments offered by the others to be convincing proof of the Temple’s former location.

Additionally, while Bahat and Ritmeyer both agree that the Temple was located at the Dome of the Rock site, they both use different lengths for the cubit. So, in effect, Bahat has found a 750-foot square area around the Dome of the Rock which he has identified as the Mishnaic Temple mount. While Ritmeyer, who is also using the Mishnah’s description and archeological features on the platform, has found an 861-foot square area around the Dome of the Rock which he identifies as the Mishnaic Temple mount. Bahat comments on his disagreement with Ritmeyer’s evidence while agreeing with his conclusion that the Temple was located at the Dome of the Rock site.

And in the corner at the place which is suggested by Dr. Ritmeyer to be the western wall, I agree with the alignment although not with the proof, there are walls which show a completely different thing. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 12 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/...

To be clear, logic does not require that because all four men disagree that all four must therefore incorrect.

However, logic does require that at least three of these four Temple mount locations are not the actual site of the former Temple. The obvious conclusion is that using Mishnaic descriptions and archeological features of the Moriah Platform can capably yield multiple irreconcilable identifications of a 500-cubit, square area within the confines of the Moriah Platform, using different archeological features as markers. And all of these different squares are equally legitimate applications of aligning archeological features of the Moriah Platform using Mishnaic dimensions. We must conclude therefore, that the application of Mishnaic dimensions to platform archeology is not a sufficient method for identifying the particular site where the Temple once stood. The Mishnah’s does not idenfity which cubit it is using. And the archeological features have not been identified with enough certainty. As such, views that rely heavily upon this type of approach to locate the Temple cannot provide compelling evidence of the true location of the Temple within the platform itself. Evidence for the uncompelling nature of this approach is exhibited by the fact that none of these scholars find the other’s archeological alignments convincing. And, of course, the fact that the archeological features are not convincingly identifiable is not surprising since these scholars have not been permitted to excavate on the Moriah platform at all.

Since 1967,…it is not possible to dig on the Temple Mount itself. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 39 mintues and 11 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Question: If you were given complete physical access to the Temple Mount and you could commence digging, how long do you estimate it would take to identify the precise location of the Temple?

Kaufman: This would depend upon the people concerned. I would be satisfied by one meter by one meter. A skeptic would say if you find a wall there it’s just pure chance, let’s try somewhere else. Okay, let’s try somewhere else, another one meter by one meter.

Question: The second aspect would be, if you have complete access to the Temple Mount for non-invasive techniques like radar, seismic tests, etc. how long do you think, do you estimate it would take to identify the location of the Temple?

Kaufman: Maybe one day. The physicists, including Lambert and myself, have been thinking over the years of various ways and methods like that. And I don’t think it’s so simple. On the area itself, I don’t think it’s so simple. From the air, there are possibilities with infrared. But this is quite expensive. One or two attempts have been made with, I understand, non-conclusive results. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 58 mintues and 17 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Question: Do the Muslims do any archeology at all, do they dig up in this area?

Sagiv Answer: There is no way to dig. No way. They don’t do anything. I don’t know what they are doing, the Arabs. But we have no way to dig inside. – Tuvia Sagiv, Question and Answers Session, The Southern Location of the Temples, 1 hour, 3 minutes, and 19 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Look, I am so eager to see what happens inside, so I tried to find ways since I can’t dig there. So, I tried to find other more sophisticated ways to see what’s going on. And I made some examining but the most effective one is the infra-red. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 1 hour, 7 minutes, and 45 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

As is demonstrated above, this approach cannot adequately identify only one, unique location for the Temple within the Moriah Platform. Instead, this technique results in several sites for the location of the Temple. Therefore, aligning archeological features of the Moriah Platform using the Mishnah’s Temple mount dimensions it isn’t an adequate method for identifying the actual site of the Temple. By necessity, since they cannot locate a single unique site, but instead are capable or revealing various sites, they cannot and do not provide compelling evidence that the actual site of the Temple was, in fact, on the Moriah Platform at all. In other words, finding a 500-cubit square area using archeological remains and varying options for the length of the cubit cannot prove anything regarding the Temple’s actual location (whether on the Moriah Platform or not).

To be fair to Sagiv, his approach does incorporate additional criteria beyond using the Mishnaic dimensions. As his papers and presentations demonstrate, Sagiv utilizes other historical data chiefly involving elevation of Temple and archeological features. These added criteria help to narrow down the results by discriminating against sites that do not fit a larger body of the historical details regarding the Temple.

Additionally, as we have seen, conventional attempts to reconcile the dimensions provided in the Mishnah with those of the Moriah Platform necessitate that the Moriah Platform is Herod’s enlargement to the Temple mount. As Dan Bahat explains, under such a conception, the Temple mount described in the Mishnah is considered to be the Hasmonean Temple mount.

Why is it that the Mishnah, which was edited a few hundred years, 130 years, after the Temple was destroyed, why does the Mishnah does not describe the Temple of Herod, the Temple Mount of Herod the Great? Why does it go all the way back to describe a previous Temple Mount? Which by the way, because of various reasons, and I’ll come back to it, I believe was built by the Maccabees, the squarrish Temple Mount, the one, which is again, 750 feet and 750 feet was built by the Maccabees, namely, Judas, Jonathan, Simeon, and John Hyrcanus I. And we’ve got many proofs to it, and it is, we’ll discuss it later. Now, why does the Mishnah have to go all the way back from 200 AD back to 150, around 150 BC and to describe that Temple Mount? The only reason why the editor of the Mishnah does not do a kind of an updating in describing the Herodian Temple Mount and does not describe anything of the like, is because of a simple reason. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 23 minutes and 31 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

However, the concept that the Mishnah is describing the Hasmonean Temple (which Bahat offers) is itself a contradiction of the historical data.

As we have seen, Josephus provides the dimensions of Herod’s enlargement. The dimensions he gives for Herod’s enlargement of the Temple are only a single Roman stade (approximately 600 feet) on each side. The Moriah Platform is over three times this size. But there is also a second reason that the Mishnah cannot be taken to describe the Hasmonean Temple.

In his writings, Josephus plainly states that Herod’s expansion of the Temple doubled the area of the previous Temple mount, which was the one built by the Hasmoneans.

ACCORDINGLY, in the fifteenth year of his reign, Herod rebuilt the temple, and encompassed a piece of land about it with a wall, which land was twice as large as that before enclosed. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 21, Paragraph 1

So, according to Josephus, Herod’s addition was twice the size of the Hasmonean Temple mount. But according to the conventional explanation today the Hasmonean Temple of the Mishnah is actually larger than Josephus’ description of the Herodian addition.

There is simply no way to reconcile the size of the Moriah Platform with the dimensions of the Temple mount provided in any of the sources. Neither Josephus nor the Mishnah describes a trapezoidal Herodian Temple mount with an area of 37.5 acres inside of walls of approximately 1,000 and 1,500 feet in length. Instead, both sources record a square Temple mount somewhere between 10-14 acres in area and between 600 and 860 square feet in its dimensions. This requires the conclusion that the Moriah Platform is not the site of the Temple.

In his presentation on the location of the Temple, former chief archeologist of Jerusalem, Dan Bahat emphasizes the necessity of using historical sources to identify the actual location of the Temple. Bahat then states his conclusion that the Moriah Platform is the Herodian Temple Mount because “it looks exactly as described by Josephus.”

And this was really the end of it. So these are the two things: Gospels, Acts, and Josephus Flavius, and the Mishnah. We we have got to try and do is to juxtapose them and to try and to see how it does work. Now we are able to say with no problem whatsoever that the present Temple Mount [Haram ash-Sharif] is the Herodian Temple Mount. We know it because it looks exactly as described by Josephus Flavius who described the Temple Mount. – Dr. Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 26:50-31:36 minutes, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...

This is an amazing conclusion for Bahat to make considering the facts we have surveyed above from both Josephus and the Mishnah. The fact is the Moriah Platform looks nothing like the Temple Mount that these critical, historical sources describe. It is clearly the wrong size and the wrong shape. And since, as Bahat states, we must use these sources to identify the Temple then we clearly must conclude that the Moriah Platform is not the Temple mount.

Josephus and the Mishnah Describe the Temple Mount

Regarding the difference between the dimensions given by Josephus and the Mishnah, several possible solutions are available. First, we might recognize that the Mishnah was recorded 130 years after the Temple was destroyed while Josephus was an eyewitness of the Temple before it was destroyed. This fact could reasonably allow us to conclude that the inconsistency between these two sources is due to the late date of the Mishnah. As such, the dimensions in the Mishnah could be considered representational, ideal, or as an upper limit, but not as an exact description of any historical Temple mount that ever existed. However, this would not seem particularly fair to the Mishnah which provides exacting measurements for various Temple structures as if they were historically accurate.

Second, it is possible that the Mishnah contains elaborations or inaccuracies that may have accumulated over the 130 years between the Temple’s destruction and the writing of the Mishnaic traditions. As an earlier and eyewitness report Josephus’ description could be given priority and the Temple would be identified as a 600 foot square. From the point of view of historical investigation this approach is not unreasonable or unwarranted. However, Jewish scholars were adept at memorization. So, while it is certainly possible that inaccuracies accumulated, this is perhaps not the ideal explanation either.

Similarly, some may wish to conclude that Josephus is exaggerating simply because he doesn’t fit with the Mishnaic description. But surely, it is unsound to throw out an eyewitness account simply because it does not agree with much later accounts. This is especially true, since Josephus has proven to be very reliable when it comes to his descriptions of places and structures of the ancient Jewish world.

Josephus – Josephus (AD 37 – c. 100), [2] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[3] was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.[4] His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus was an important apologist in the Roman world for the Jewish people and culture, particularly at a time of conflict and tension. He always remained, in his own eyes, a loyal and law-observant Jew. He went out of his way both to commend Judaism to educated Gentiles, and to insist on its compatibility with cultured Graeco-Roman thought. He constantly contended for the antiquity of Jewish culture, presenting its people as civilised, devout and philosophical. Eusebius reports that a statue of Josephus was erected in Rome.[5] Josephus's two most important works are The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[6] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of early Christianity.[6] – wikipedia.org

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

In either case it is certainly not the most desirable option to simply set aside historical sources. Fortunately, a more ideal explanation for this inconsistency does exist which is able to harmonize Josephus’ description with that of the Mishnah.

As we proceed, we must first keep in mind that Josephus provides his dimensions for the Temple mount by referring to the actual outermost structures of the Temple complex (its foundations, walls, cloisters). (Below, is a quote of Josephus which illustrates this point. For brevity and to avoid redundancy, we have only included a small portion of Josephus’ descriptions of the Temple.)

Below is the quote of Tractate Middot, which provides the Mishnah’s account of the Temple mount’s dimensions. In contrast to Josephus, the Mishnah gives the dimensions of the Temple mount without any reference to its outermost structures. (We have provided some of the context of this portion of the Mishnah in order to show that there is no reference to the Temple structures themselves when the dimensions are listed.)

PEREK II. 1. The Temple inclosure (the Temple Mount) was 500 cubits by 500 cubits; it was largest on the south; next largest on the east; then on the north; smallest on the west. The place where there was most measurement there was also most service. 2. All who entered the Temple inclosure entered by the right, and turned and went out by the left, except those whom something had befallen, who turned to the left. "What ails thee that thou turnest to the left?" "Because I am a mourner." "He that dwelleth in this house comfort thee!" "Because I am under the bann." "He that dwelleth in this house put it in their hearts, that they restore thee!" So Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Jose says to him, "This would make it, as if they had transgressed against him in judgment; but rather: 'He that dwelleth in this house put it in thy heart, that thou hearken to the words of thy brethren, and they restore thee.'" – 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/...

In contrast to the fact that no structures are mentioned in relation to the 500 by 500 cubit dimensions, Tractate Middot does provide a fairly detailed description of the Temple courts, their structures, and the altar. In each case, the Mishnah provides quite a bit of detail as well as the sizes of the individual structures. This is quite distinct from the description of the Temple mount where no structures of the building complex are referenced at all. (This detailed description of other portions of the Temple, comes just a few paragraphs after the descriptions of the Temple mount’s dimensions.)

5. The Court of the women was 135 cubits long by 135 cubits broad, and four chambers were in the four angles, each 40 cubits square, and they were not roofed in. And so they are intended to be, as it is said: "And he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold, in every corner of the court a court. In the four corners of the court courts smoking" ...It is said, they were "smoking," and that because they were not roofed. And for what did they serve? That on the south-east was the chamber of the Nazarites, where the Nazarites washed their peace-offerings, and polled their hair, and threw it under the pot. That on the north-east was the wood chamber, where the priests who were disqualified picked the wood, and every stick in which a worm was found, it was unfitted for the altar. That on the north-west was the chamber of the lepers. That on the south-west Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: "I have forgotten for what it served." Abba Shaul said: "There they put the wine and the oil; it was called the chamber of the house of Schamanyah." And it [the wall] was at first flush, and they surrounded it with a gallery, so that the women looked from above and the men from beneath, for the purpose that they might not be mixed together. And fifteen steps went up from there to the Court of Israel, like the fifteen degrees in the Psalms [Songs of Degrees in the Psalms]. Upon these the Levites stood singing the songs. They were not rectangular but rounded, like the arc of a rounded substance. 6. And there were chambers beneath the Court of Israel, and they opened upon the Court of the Women. There the Levites placed their harps, and their psalteries, and their cymbals, and all the musical instruments. The Court of Israel was 135 cubits long by 11 broad, and similarly, the Court of the Priests was 135 long by 11 broad, and the heads of the beams divided between the Court of Israel and the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: There was a step, a cubit high, and upon it the Duchan was placed, and on it were three steps, each half a cubit. It results, that the Court of the Priests was 2 1/2 cubits higher than that of Israel. The entire court was 187 cubits long and 135 cubits broad. Thirteen obeisances took place there. Abba Jose, the son of Chanan, said: "Towards the thirteen gates." The southern were: nearest to the west, the upper gate, then the gate of burning, the gate of the first-born, and the water-gate. And 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." Rabbi Eliezer, the son of Jacob, said: "And by it the waters were flowing down, with the direction of coming out below the threshold of the Temple." And opposite to them to the north were: (nearest to the west) the gate of Jeconiah, the gate of offering, the gate of the women, and the gate of the song. And why was it called the gate of Jeconiah? Because by it Jeconiah went out into captivity. That on the east was the gate of Nicanor, and it had two wickets, one on its right and the other on its left. And there were two [gates] to the west; they had no name. – 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/...

Perek III. 1. The altar was 32 by 32 [cubits]. Upwards 1 cubit, and contract 1 cubit: that was the base. Remain 30 by 30. Upwards 5, and contract 1 cubit: that was the circuit. Remain 28 by 28. The place of the horns, a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side. Remain 26 by 26. The place for the tread of the priests, a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side. Remain 24 by 24: the place where the sacrifice was laid out. Rabbi Jose said: "At the first it was only 28 by 28; though it contracted and went up, according to this measurement, until there remained the place for laying the sacrifices: 20 by 20. But when the children of the Captivity came up, they added to it 4 cubits on the south and 4 on the west like a gamma, because it is said, 'And Ariel shall be 12 cubits long by 12 broad, square.' That does not mean that it was only 12 by 12, since it is added: 'In the four corners thereof,' to teach that it measured from the middle 12 cubits in every direction." – Sketches of Jewish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim, Appendix 1 Massecheth, Middoth (Being the Mishnic Tractate Descriptive of the Measurements of the Temple), Perek III, http://www.bible-history.com/...

In contrast to Tractate Middot’s detailed descriptions of the sizes and dimensions of the courts and the altar, the fact that the Tractate Middot is absent of references to specific structures when giving the dimensions of the Temple mount itself suggests that the Temple mount dimensions may not have pertained to any particular structure of the Temple complex. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the dimensions provided in Tractate Middot for the various Temple courts do not fill up the 500 by 500 cubit area designated as the Temple mount.

According to Tractate Middot, the court of the women measured at 135 cubits square (an area of 18,225 cubits). The court of Israel measured at 135 cubits by 11 cubits (an area of 1,485 cubits). Similarly, the court of the priests measured at 135 cubits by 11 cubits (an area of 1,485 cubits). Together, these three courts contain an area of 21,195 cubits. In addition, there is also some intervening and adjoining chambers and steps, which are listed in the tractate. And the entire court is measured at 187 cubits by 135 cubits. That is a total area of 25,245 cubits for all these courts and intervening structures. Even totalled together these areas of the Temple do not add up to 500 by 500 cubits, which is an area of 250,000 cubits. The clear conclusion is that the 500 by 500 cubits of the Temple mount are not a reference to the actual structures of the Temple.

5. The Court of the women was 135 cubits long by 135 cubits broad, and four chambers were in the four angles, each 40 cubits square, and they were not roofed in. – 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/...

The Court of Israel was 135 cubits long by 11 broad, and similarly, the Court of the Priests was 135 long by 11 broad, and the heads of the beams divided between the Court of Israel and the Court of the Priests. – 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/...

The entire court was 187 cubits long and 135 cubits broad. – 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/...

To illustrate, Israel’s Shrine of the Book Museum complex has a scale model depicting what some scholars believe the Herodian Temple looked like and its location within Jerusalem. In the model, the the Temple house itself (including the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies) as well as the various courts described in Tractate Middot, are placed in the middle of an enormous flat space that extends to the edges of Moriah Platform. Since Tractate Middot is absent of any measurement large enough to fill the entire Moriah platform, this model illustrates a key fact. Tractate Middot does not provide measurements for the Temple complex as a whole, i.e. the outermost dimensions of the Temple. Consequently, the outer court can be assigned virtually any dimensions, even those of Moriah Platform. (For reference, see Conventional Antonia 1.)

Because of this issue, scholars today believe that the Tractate Middot is describing the earlier Hasmonean Temple and NOT the later Herodian Temple. Below Dan Bahat’s explains his view that the Mishnah is describing the Hasmonean Temple and not the Herodian Temple.

Why is it that the Mishnah, which was edited a few hundred years, 130 years, after the Temple was destroyed, why does the Mishnah does not describe the Temple of Herod, the Temple Mount of Herod the Great? Why does it go all the way back to describe a previous Temple Mount? Which by the way, because of various reasons, and I’ll come back to it, I believe was built by the Maccabees, the squarrish Temple Mount, the one, which is again, 750 feet and 750 feet was built by the Maccabees, namely, Judas, Jonathan, Simeon, and John Hyrcanus I. And we’ve got many proofs to it, and it is, we’ll discuss it later. Now, why does the Mishnah have to go all the way back from 200 AD back to 150, around 150 BC and to describe that Temple Mount? The only reason why the editor of the Mishnah does not do a kind of an updating in describing the Herodian Temple Mount and does not describe anything of the like, is because of a simple reason. You remember I told you that the Mishnah is actually the basis for our religious system…And therefore, from this we must come to only one conclusion. That the reason why that only the area, the Maccabeen, let’s call it, Temple Mount, is the one which is described in the Mishnah is simply because the laws of purity are all the laws of the Temple Mount, pertain only to the Temple Mount and not to the Herodian addition. You understand. And therefore, it is the interest of the writer of the Mishnah to describe that part of the Temple Mount to which the laws pertain. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 23 minutes and 31 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

The Hasmonean Temple is not thought to have included an outer court for the Gentiles. That outer Gentile court is considered to be a Herodian novelty added to the courts of the Jewish Temple. Again, Dan Bahat explains.

This conclusion seems fair since the Mishnah does not mention the court of the Gentiles even though it provides dimensions for each of the other courts. However, as mentioned earlier, the total dimensions for those other courts do not fill up the 500 by 500 cubits provided in the Mishnah. Therefore, if Tractate Middot is describing the Hasmonean Temple then we can be sure that the 500 by 500 cubits it ascribes to the Temple mount is not a reference to the Temple structure itself, but a holy area, camp, or precinct within which the Temple stood.

But, even if Tractate Middot is describing the Herodian Temple (rather than the Hasmonean Temple), the 500 by 500 cubits must still be a reference to a holy area, camp, or precinct within which the Temple stood. The Mishnah provides the dimensions of the various Temple courts, the court of the women, the court of Israel, and the court of the priests. However, as we said there is no mention of the court of the Gentiles or its dimensions. Josephus, on the other hand, does provide measurements for the outer perimeter of Herod’s Temple. The dimensions Josephus gives for the Herodian Temple mount is still smaller than the 500 by 500 cubit area of the Temple Mount as described in Tractate Middot. Consequently, Tractate Middot’s 500 by 500 measurement is larger than the outermost dimensions of the Herodian Temple provided by Josephus. Therefore, if Tractate Middot is also describing the Herodian Temple, it is still the case that the 500 cubit square only measures a holy camp or precinct around the Temple complex. It is not the measurements of the Temple structure itself.

The concept of a holy precinct (or area) not limited to the actual structures is clearly presented in both biblical teaching and later Jewish tradition.

The Book of Exodus records that Moses went up and met with God on the holy mountain. This account clearly includes the concept of a holy camp around God’s holy mountain that is not specifically referential to building structures. When Moses went up Mount Sinai to meet with God, God charged Moses to set the boundaries around the mount, to sanctify it.

Exodus 19:23 And Moses said unto the LORD, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.

Clearly, Moses’ meeting with God on the mount has great relevance to the Jewish tabernacle/temple system which was instituted later. As such, the idea of a specified holy precinct on a mountain fits with the fact that the Mishnaic dimensions of the Temple mount do not refer to the actual structures of the Temple complex itself.

In his book, Ernest L. Martin, quotes from Maimonides who distinguished between the entire area of the Temple Mount and the place between the courts of the Temple as described in the Mishnah.

Maimonides said: “It is also clear that the gradation [of holiness] with regard to the various places, that is, the Temple Mount, to the place between the two walls [of Temple Square], to the Hall of the Women, to the Hall [Court of Israel], and to the Holy of Holies.” 690, Footnote 690: Maimonides, The Guide to the Perplexed, Book III, ch.45 (see translation by Sholomo Pines, p. 581)., quoted from Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 462

Using Jewish sources such as Maimonidea and the Talmud, Martin concludes the Temple mount was a particular holy area or precinct within the city of Jerusalem.

The first camp was the priestly area of the Temple, the second camp was the “Temple Mount” and the third camp was the official religious limit of the City of Jerusalem. 683, Footnote 683: Yoma 68a, see also Zabahim 105b. – Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 460

Martin’s conclusion is supported by additional commentary provided in Tractate Ta’anit.

Ta'anit (Talmud) – Ta'anit or Taanis is a volume (or "tractate") of the Mishnah, Tosefta, and both Talmuds. In Judaism these are the basic works of rabbinic literature. The tractate of Ta'anit is devoted chiefly to the fast-days, their practices and prayers. In most editions of the Talmud this treatise is the ninth in the mishnaic order of Seder Mo'ed, and is divided into four chapters containing thirty-four folio in all. – wikipedia.org

Tractate Ta’anit gives further indications that ancient, rabbinic Judaism distinguished between the designated area of Temple mount and the eastern gates of the Temple itself.

TA'ANIT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 5 – It once happened during the time of Rabbi Halafta and Rabbi Hananyah ben Tradyon that one passed before the Ark and concluded the entire blessing, and they did not respond after him "Amen." "Blow, the priests, blow!" "He Who answered our father Abraham on Mount Moriah, He will answer you and heed the sound of your crying this day." "Sound the alarm, sons of Aaron, sound the alarm!" "He Who answered our forefathers at the Red Sea, He will answer you and heed the sound of your crying this day." And when the matter came before the Sages, they said, We did not behave thusly, save at the Eastern Gate and on the Temple Mount. – Torah Community Connections, http://www.moreshet.net/...

Below Martin explains that the Tractate Taanit (quote above) makes a geographic distinction between the eastern gate of the Temple and the area designated as the Temple mount.

The dimensions of the “Temple Mount” are not to be equated with those of the Temple walls or Temple Gates. 689, Footnote 689: Talmud, Mas. Ta’anith 15b [the text is capitalized and I retain the capitalization]: “IN THE DAYS OF R. HALAFTA AND R. HANINA B. TRADITION THAT A MAN STEPPED BEFORE THE ARK AND COMPLETED THE ENTIRE BENEDICTION AND THEY DID NOT RESPOND, ‘AMEN’…THIS WAS OUR ORDER OF PROCEDURE ONLY AT THE EASTERN GATES AND ON THE TEMPLE MOUNT.” Note that the last two phrases of this reference distinguish the Eastern Gates of the Temple from the “Temple Mount” itself. Two different areas are discussed in this geographic statement. – Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 462

These Talmudic and biblical passages provide a sound basis for understanding the difference between Josephus’ dimensions of the Herodian Temple and the Mishnah’s dimensions of the Temple mount. Rabbinic Judaism recognized designated areas, called camps, of varying degrees of holiness. One such camp was the camp of the Temple mount. Within the area designated as the camp of the Temple mount, the entire Temple complex was built.

As Dan Bahat concludes, the Mishnah refers to a squarrish holy precinct that the laws of purity applied to. It is not a reference to the dimensions of the outer structures of the Herodian Temple complex itself.

These biblical, rabbinical, and scholarly descriptions create the expectation that the camp of the Temple mount would exceed the dimensions of the Herodian Temple structure itself. And this is exactly what we do find reported in Josephus and the Mishnah. Josephus states that Herod’s enlargement of the Temple resulted in a square structure whose outer perimeter was equal to a Roman stade. (This is the equivalent of approximately 600 feet.)

The rabbinical sources recorded in the Mishnah measure the Temple mount area to be a square of 500 by 500 cubits (between 750 and 860 feet). Clearly, Herod’s Temple structure (the outer edges of which were each 600 feet long) fit within the holy precinct known as the Temple mount. We have illustrated the geometric and special relationships described by Josephus and the Mishnah using a diagram. (See Temple Camp Diagram.)

Additionally, the idea that the Temple complex was within the larger area designated as the camp of the Temple mount also explains Tractate Middot’s comments that there was a different amount of space on the four sides of the Temple mount.

1. The Temple inclosure (the Temple Mount) was 500 cubits by 500 cubits; it was largest on the south; next largest on the east; then on the north; smallest on the west. – Tractate Middot, Perek II

Since Josephus explains that the Herodian Temple complex was approximately 600 feet square and Tractate Middot indicates that the Temple mount was between 750 and 860 feet square, the Temple buildings did not completely fill the camp of the Temple mount. Apparently, according to Tractate Middot, the Temple building was not centered within the area of the Temple mount. Instead, there were different amounts of space between each side of the actual Temple complex and the limit of the official area of the Temple mount. (Again, we must keep in mind that Tractate Middot does not include the court of the Gentiles. Modern scholars agree with this fact. Therefore, the 500 by 500 cubit area is not a reference to the areas occupied by each of the Temple courts, the priests, of Israel, and of the women within the outer court of the Gentiles.)

As we can see this harmonization of Josephus and the Mishnah actually originates in the historical sources themselves. It is not an ad hoc solution. Josephus provides the dimensions of the entire Herodian Temple itself. While the Mishnah provides the dimensions of the holy precinct of Jerusalem that the Temple complex was within. Four facts support this conclusion. First, Josephus clearly establishes the dimensions of the Herodian Temple structure itself. Likewise, Tractate Middot provides the exact dimensions of each of the Temple’s courts. However, Tractate Middot doesn’t attribute the measurements of the Temple mount to any of the courts of the Temple. The text clearly shows that the 500 by 500 cubit dimensions do not refer to any of the Temple courts, which it describes shortly afterward with a different set of measurements totaling less than 500 by 500 cubits.

Second, Exodus 19:23 clearly describes a holy precinct around God’s presence on the mount. This biblical record of Moses’ visit with God on Mount Sinai is certainly relevant to both the tabernacle and Temple. Third, other rabbinical writings express the idea that the Temple mount was a distinct area that was not defined by the perimeter of the actual Temple structures themselves. And fourth, modern scholars such as Dan Bahat agree that the Mishnah describes a holy precinct and that it is not describing the Herodian temple structure itself.

As we can see Dr. Asher Kaufman’s conclusion is correct. Josephus and the Mishnah can be easily explained without contradicting one another.

And some say that there are contradictions between Middot and Josephus. On the other hand, I’ve found that nearly everything can be explained one against the other, almost everything. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 9 minutes and 38 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

So, we do not have to disregard the reports of Josephus or the Mishnah. The two sources do not conflict with one another. However, both of these critical sources agree in reporting a Temple mount that absolutely does not fit with the shape, size, or dimensions of the Moriah Platform. The largest dimensions (those of the holy precinct provided in the Mishnah) are far too small, being only one-third of the size of the existing platform. Because this is the case, we must conclude that the Moriah Platform is not the Temple mount.