biblestudying.net

Printer Friendly Version

Other Elevation Issues and the Site of the Temple

Additional facts regarding elevation require that the Temple was located to the south of the Moriah Platform. Tel Aviv architect and Temple scholar, Tuvia Sugiv provides several elevation-related issues that require that the Temple could not have been located at the Dome of the Rock or farther north on the Moriah Platform. The first reason mentioned by Sagiv concerns Josephus’ report that Herod Agrippa was able to look down into the priests’ court of the Temple from a room in the Herodian palace (west of the Temple).

11. About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus. and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. – Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chatper 8, Paragraph 11

Below is Tuvia Sagiv’s discussion of this issue. As Sagiv explains, locating the Temple at the site of the Dome of the Rock (or farther north) would require that King Agrippa’s palace was approximately 200 feet (between 50 and 70 meters) high. No such building existed in ancient Jerusalem or in that area of the city even today. The only solution to this historical fact is that the Temple was at a lower elevation than the site of the Dome of the Rock. This means that the Temple was further to the south on the Moriah ridge.

Here we have the dimensions of the wall of the priests’ court. And here we have a section which goes to the Jewish quarter, to the nowadays Jerusalem. And you must understand that in order to see what happened inside you must be above this line. Its very simple and clear that I can’t see you. Only when I’m higher I can see you. So a person who wants to see something inside should be higher than this point. It means that the building or the sleeping room of Agrippa II should be above this point. And my dear friends, the level between the city and this line is about 70 meters. Between 50 and 70 meters. It means it is about 20 floors, more, 25 floors without any elevator. How could he see? There is no such building in Jerusalem even nowadays. It doesn’t work. So, how could he see anything? The only way to see something inside is to lower the Temple…. And now our fellow Agrippa can see the animal sacrifices in this area from a building of twenty one meters, which makes sense. More than that. Look what happens when we put the Temple in the south. As I told you it was very difficult to see what happened on the inside. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 48 minutes and 2 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

It’s a story about Agrippa II. Agrippa II was the grandson of Herod the Great and he was educated in Rome and he came to Jerusalem and he lived in the area nearby, you see, here, in the Hasmonean palace, which was in the area of the nowadays Jewish Quarter. From there he made a very nice apartment and he looked inside the priest’s court and looked at how the Jews sacrificed, the priests sacrificed the animals. The Jews were very angry about it. They didn’t like it. And therefore they built here a wall, you see here, to avoid the view from Agrippa [to] inside the court. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 18 minutes and 28 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

And it was some years before, it was in the time of Josephus Flavius. It’s all true. The people know about this evidence. It was some years before the Temple was destroyed. Very nice story. I tried to see and understand how come. What did Agrippa see? Because to see what happened in there out here it is impossible because the Temple, which was very high avoid any view. The only way to see something is here inside between these two walls, the wall of the Temple and the wall of the court. So, inside he looked and here indeed there was a place in which the animals were sacrificed. In this place, here was the palace of the Hasmonean and from here somewhere Agrippa looked inside. But my dear friends in order to see something which was in here you have to build here a building which is about fifty to seventy meters. Which is about 200 feet. There is no such building in Jerusalem even nowadays. So, how come Agrippa could see anything inside the area? But there is no way to see anything. You don’t need any additional wall to avoid, there is no view. But in order to see this you must be about fifty to seventy meters high. There was no way in those days to see what happened inside. The only way is to lower the Temple. Now, we have the feeling all of the time that we have to lower the Temple, but how much? What will be the real level? – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 20 minutes and 59 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

So, Josephus’ historical account of King Agrippa’s view from the Hasmonean Palace indicates that the Temple could not be as far north on the Moriah ridge as the Dome of the Rock. The elevation at this portion of the ridge is too high and would make it impossible for King Agrippa to have had a view into the court of the priests. The result, once again, is that the Temple has to be further to the south on the Moriah ridge.

Another elevation issue that challenges the Dome of the Rock location of the Temple concerns the level of an ancient aqueduct that has been uncovered on the Moriah Platform.

But fortunately, on the other hand, we’ve got this fantastic discovery, which we made here, which is a great aqueduct which was brought by the fortress made by the Maccabees, the so called, now the Hasmonean Aqueduct, which is one of the most fantastic structures discovered in this country dated to the Hasmonean… – Dr. Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 39:40-40:07 minutes, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...

And the greatest of all the discoveries was our understanding of an enormous aqueduct, which is pre-Herodian, –Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 42 minutes and 10 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Here you can see, it is upside down on purpose, because I want to show you the aqueduct discovered by Warren in nineteenth century and rediscovered by us going all the way, an aqueduct into that part in the north. – Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 1 hour, 21 minutes, and 9 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Again, Tuvia Sagiv explains the historical and archeological relevance of this aqueduct.

And from there the aqueduct brought water to Jerusalem with the very slow slope. One per mile. A wonderful work. So the water came from all this way about thirty kilometers to Jerusalem and there the water entered to the Temple Mount. Even nowadays, you know the system and the engineering was so perfect, here you can see section of the aqueduct. Here you see how it looks. And what happens even till the last century the aqueduct were used, both of them. Here you see a pipe which was done by the Arabs. And they supply water till the period of the English, till the English came here to Jerusalem. When you go down from the Jewish Quarter to the Wailing Wall you can see, here is the aqueduct and here you can see the Arabic pipe, nowadays, its near the Moriah court. According to our sources, the aqueduct supplied water to two elements. Two subjects were using the water from the aqueduct. One of them was the ritual bath for the high priest. He washed himself here once a year preparing himself for entering into the Holy of Holies. And the bath was above the Water Gate. And here I put the rock, on it the priests’ court, and here is the Water Gate and here is the bath in which the priests enter in and wash themselves. Another element which need this water was the priests’ court. Where the animals where sacrificed a lot of blood covered the area and they have to wash the area. And it’s written in our sources that they closed the court, the priests’ court and let the water of the aqueduct to go up and then it cleans the blood. It means that this is a holy purpose and this is a functional purpose using the water of the aqueduct. Now, I put the Temple according to the traditional system on the rock and other hand, I put here the aqueduct, the entrance of the aqueduct which we can see nowadays in the Jewish quarter and you can see that the aqueduct is lower than the baths and the priests’ court. So, how can the water come up? And more than that you must understand that it was very important that the water for the priests should be water which comes with a gravitation system not by man’s hand. And in order to cover the priests with blood you can’t do it by hand, you have to let the water go. And only by gravitation. It’s the only way. So, how can the water go up? It’s about more than twenty meters. It doesn’t work. The only way to bring water to the Temple is to lower the Temple. And more than that. After all these questions I’ve asked, and we came to the feeling that we have to lower the Temple, here we have exactly the level of the Temple. And so we have to lower the Temple till this point. It means that this aqueduct, this small pipe outside the area gives us the key to find what is the level of the Temple. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 51 minutes and 16 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

And the Jews made and arranged a wonderful engineering system of supplying water to Jerusalem. It was so long it begins in the area of Hebron and the area of Bethlehem. You have seen the Solomon pools. And from there the water go through a line of about thirty kilometers and brought water to Jerusalem using the fact that Hebron and Bethlehem are higher than Jerusalem and the water came to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem to the Temple. As we know you can see even some section of the tunnel of the aqueduct. You know the aqueduct even nowadays until the last century. It was used by the Arabs. Here you see the tunnel of the water and here you can see the line the Arabs made here. Till the beginning of the century, the last century it was used by them and it gave water to Jerusalem. According to the sources there were two elements in the Temple in which they used the water from the aqueduct. One was the high priest’s ritual bath. Once a year, you know, the high priest came inside the Holy of Holies. And he had to wash himself. In this area which was above the Water Gate. Here came the water and the high priest enter, washed himself, and go prepare himself to enter the Holy of Holies. Another source, which is mentioned in our sources that they use of the aqueduct was to wash the priests’ court. You know, here was the altar, a lot of blood was in the court and in order to wash it they used the aqueduct. Now if we put the Temple on the Dome of the Rock, or according to Professor Kaufman in the north area. On the other hand, we have exactly the height of the aqueduct nowadays. We can see there is no way to bring the water to the high priest and there is no way to bring the water to the priests’ court. So how can they use they use the aqueduct water to wash the court. How could they use the water for the high priest. And it was very important. You know in those days there weren’t no machine all the system was by gravitation. So, how come? The only way is, work with me together, just to lower the level of the Temple. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 24 minutes and 11 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/...

As Sugiv explains, if the Temple was located at the site of the Dome of the Rock (or further north) the aqueduct would not have been able to bring water for use in the Temple courts. Aqueducts used gravitational force to provide water gathered from higher elevations outside the city. These remains of an aqueduct which have been found are not high enough to provide water to the elevation of the Dome of the Rock site (or Kaufman’s proposed site further north). This again points to a Temple site located farther south at a lower elevation on the Moriah ridge.

Tuvia Sagiv also points out that the gates identified today as the Huldah Gates do not have the same elevation relationship to the Moriah Platform as the sources ascribe between these gates and the Temple. As Sagiv explains, Josephus and the Mishnah report an elevation difference of 10 meters between the Hulda Gates and the Temple. On the other hand, the difference between the southern gates of the Moriah Platform and the Dome of the Rock are 20 meters. These differences undermine the assumption that the Moriah Platform is the Temple and that the platform’s gates are the Temple’s gates.

One of the main entrances to the Temple Mount was from the double and the triple gate, which I’ll call the Huldah Gate. According to the sources, according to the Mishnah and according to Josephus Flavius, the difference of height between the Huldah Gate and the Holy of Holies was about ten meters. Now when you come to the area and you measure the difference in height between the Huldah Gate nowadays and the Dome of the Rock, or even if you worked according to Professor Kaufman’s theory, the difference of height is twenty meters. Where are the ten meters? In the sources nothing is mentioned about such a height. So, the scholars came to the conclusion that there was a tunnel here. And indeed, in fact, there is a tunnel in the area. Underground, the Al-Aqsa Mosque. But this tunnel is from a later time. And the scholars even try to make an illustration how it looks in the past. But there is no such evidence. No where is it written that there was such a tunnel. According to Josephus Flavius, from outside the city you entered directly to the Temple Mount, there was no tunnel in the descriptions in the literature sources we have. But if we say that indeed this is the level of the Temple Mount, this is the entrance to the Temple Mount, it means that we have to go ten meters et. al. and find the level of the Holy of Holies. So, we have to lower the level of the Temple if this is indeed the entrance. And we have to go only ten meters. And you can tell me, “Ten meters, five meters, don’t be so…” You know we have a lot of mountains here in Jerusalem, so ten meters is no problem. But you see that in the sources they are arguing about every step. If someone is not sure, we say, “No, you are not right, there was only twenty steps, only two steps.” So, it was very important for them to direct and say how many steps there was there. And there is a correlation between Josephus Flavius about the difference of height and what’s written in the Mishnah. Both of them we calculate, we have ten meters that’s all. So, what’s going on? – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 10 minutes and 35 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

As Sagiv concludes below, the difference in elevation between the southern gates of the Moriah Platform and the site of the Dome of the Rock does not fit with the elevation difference between the Huldah Gates and the Temple as provided in the sources.

And in the moment that we lower the place of the Temple we enter from the Huldah Gate directly to the Temple Mount without any tunnels. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 30 minutes and 9 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

This is yet another elevation mismatch between the Temple and the Moriah Platform. We have chronicled several elevation inconsistencies. The first was that Agrippa was able to look into the court of the priests. This could not have been the case if the Temple was located at the elevation of the Dome of the Rock. The second was that the Dome of the Rock site was too high to receive water from the ancient aqueduct. The third is that the difference in elevation between the Temple and the Huldah Gates does not match the level between the Dome of the Rock and the southern gates of the Moriah Platform. These three factors involve historical data, archeological data, and topography of the Moriah Platform. All three clearly contradict the identification of the Moriah Platform with the Temple. Earlier, we looked at other historical data that showed that the Moriah Platform fits quite well with the characteristics of Antonia. All of these reasons indicate that the Temple’s site should be sought at a lower elevation on the Moriah ridge somewhere south of the Moriah Platform.

We must keep in mind that Josephus also stated that the Temple was located on a hill or peak between Antonia Fortress and Zion/Akra Fortress. The elevation issues that are pointed out by Tuvia Sagiv indicate that the Temple was not located on the peak beneath the Dome of the Rock. Instead, we must look for a lower peak further south on the Moriah ridge. The next peak on the Moriah ridge is south of the Moriah Platform itself at the northern portion of the area of Davidic Jerusalem. Today the area of this lower peak is identified as the Ophel mound. Josephus’ remarks concerning Agrippa’s view and the position of the ancient aqueduct fit well with biblical accounts that place the Temple in close proximity to the Ophel mound, Zion hill, and the Gihon Spring south of the Moriah Platform.

Post-Destruction Accounts Regarding the Site of the Temple

Beyond the historical data we have investigated from the Temple periods, there are many historical accounts from the post-Temple period that indicate that the Moriah Platform was not the site of the Temple. Earlier we looked at Christian, Jewish, and Roman historical accounts that the Temple and its walls were completely destroyed to the point of being dug up to their foundations.

Early records from the period after the Temple’s destruction indicate that during the Roman period, the site of the Temple was a field or farm. Eusebius also says that the place of the Temple had become a farm sown with seed and plowed by bulls.

Eusebius of Caesarea – Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – c. 339^[1]) (often called Eusebius Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus") became the bishop of Caesarea Palaestina, the capital of Iudaea province, c 314.^[1] He is often referred to as the Father of Church History because of his work in recording the history of the early Christian church, especially Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History^[1]. – wikipedia.org

Utter desolation has possessed the land. Their once famous Mount Sion instead of being as it once was, the center of study and education based on the divine prophecies, which the children of the Hebrews of old, their godly prophets, priests and national teachers loved to interpret, is a Roman farm like the rest of the country. Yea, with my own eyes I have seen the bulls plowing there, and the sacred site sown with seed. And Jerusalem itself is become but a storehouse of its fruit of old days now destroyed, or better, as the Hebrew has it, a stonequary. So Aquila says: ‘Therefore for your sake the land of Sion shall be ploughed, and Jerusalem shall be a quarry of stone,’ for being inhabited of men of foreign race it is even now like a quarry. All the inhabitants of the city choose stores from its ruins as they will [without restraint] for private as well as public buildings. And it is sad for the eyes to see stones from the Temple itself, and from its ancient sanctuary and holy place, used for the buildings of idol temples, and of theatres for the populace. These things are open for the eyes to see.” – Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book VIII, Chapter 3, Section 406

Mount Sion was burned and left utterly desolate, and the Mount of the House of God became as a grove of wood. If our own observation has any value, we have seen in our own time Sion once so famous ploughed with yokes of oxen by the Romans and utterly devastated, and Jerusalem as the oracle says, deserted like a lodge. – Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book VI, Chapter 7, Section 265

A story provided by Micha Joseph Bin Gorion in his collection of Classical Jewish Folktales, Mimekor Yisrael confirms Eusebius’ accounts.

The place where our glorious Temple was built had long been a field [a farm] owned by two brothers…That was the place that the Lord desired, the spot where Two Brothers had thought and done the good deed. This is why it was blessed by the men of the earth, and the children of Israel chose it for building a House for the Lord. – Micha Joseph Bin Gorion, Mimekor Yisrael, Classical Jewish Folktales, (Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 272-273.

And recall there are Roman coins as early as the second century showing the area of Jerusalem being plowed as Eusebius said. 251, Footnote 251: Bahat, Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, pp.60-61., quoted from Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 215

It is hard to imagine someone plowing oxen and sowing seed on the Moriah Platform. Clearly, the Moriah Platform which survived the Roman destruction was not the site of a farm where the Temple once stood.

Justin Martyr, the Christian apologist of the second century AD also says that the area of Zion had become a desolate wilderness. And yet the Moriah Platform stood with its stones in tact.

The city of Thy holiness has become desolate. Zion has become as a wilderness, Jerusalem a curse; the house, our holiness, and the glory which our fathers blessed, has been burned with fire; and all the glorious nations have fallen along with it….Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 25.

Likewise, other reports by Christians and Muslims indicate that by the Byzantine period the Temple site had become the local garbage dump. In his book, A History of Palestine, Moshe Gil quotes Jerome, the Christian apologist of the fourth century, who affirms that the Temple had become a place of refuse.

Our holy and our beautify house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire; and all our pleasant things are laid waste’: and the Temple which earned reverence throughout the world has become the refuse dump of the new city whose founder [Hadrian] called it Aelia [that is, Hadrian called his new city Aelia Capitolina]. – Jerome, from Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, p. 67, n.70., quoted from Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 175

According to Moshe Gil’s work A History of Palestine 634-1099 the site of the Jewish Temples had been a refuse dump from the time of the Byzantine era.

According to Muslim tradition (and there is no reason to doubt it), the Byzantines turned the Temple Mount into Jerusalem’s refuse dump from the time of Helena, the mother of Constantine – Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, p. 65.

The renowned medieval Jewish commentator David Kimchi claimed that even until his day, Gentiles had never built on the site of the Jewish Temple.

David Kimhi – David Kimhi (1160 – 1235), also known by the Hebrewacronym as the RaDaK, was a medievalrabbi, biblical commentator, philosopher, and grammarian. Born in Narbonne, Provence, he was the son of Rabbi Joseph Kimhi and the brother of Rabbi Moses Kimhi, both biblical commentators and grammarians….David Kimhi is best known today for his commentaries on the books of the Prophets. – wikipedia.org

And is still in ruins, that the Temple site was never built on by the nations. – David Kimchi, Commentary on Isaiah 64:10

Moses Maimonides, the great codifier of Talmudic law, says likewise. According to Maimonides, the Temple was in ruins, it was not the home of some Gentile shrine or sanctuary.

Moses Maimonides – Moses Maimonides, also known as Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon or the acronym the Rambam, was born in Cordoba, Spain on March 30, 1135, and died in Egypt on December 13, 1204. One of the greatest Torah scholars of all time, he was a rabbi, physician, and philosopher in Spain, Morocco and Egypt during the Middle Ages. He was the preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher…The fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah today retains canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. – wikipedia.org

As far as the Sanctuary and Jerusalem were concerned, the first sanctification hallowed them for all time to come…. Wherefrom the Sages have averred, even though they are desolate, the sanctuaries retain their pristine holiness…. Now just as we are obliged to keep the Sabbath for all time to come, so must we reverence the Sanctuary for all time to come; for even though it is in ruins, its sanctity endures. – Maimonides, Misneh Torah, Section 8: Book of Temple Services, 1180 AD

In his presentation on the Temple’s location, Asher Kaufman points to the conclusions of these important Jewish commentors that the site of the Temple has never been built upon.

The famous commentator called RaDaQ, Rabbi David Kimchi, from 1160-1235 approximately. And he says about this particular verse and these two words, “our temple,” “It is still in ruins because,” or rather, “for it has never been built upon by the nations.” Another interesting observation because we find that in fact, according to these results the Temple itself is free from any important buildings a part from one little item. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 30 minutes and 29 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

Azariah dei Rossi, the Jewish chronicler of the sixteenth century, writing more than 800 years after the Dome of the Rock was built, also says that there had never been a house of prayer for any other people built on the site of the Temple.

Azariah dei Rossi – Azariah ben Moses dei Rossi was an Italian-Jewish physician and scholar. He was born at Mantua in 1513 or 1514; and died in 1578. He was descended from an old Jewish family which, according to a tradition, was brought by Titus from Jerusalem. He is known chiefly for his book Me'or Eynaim (Hebrew, Light of the Eyes) in which he used critical methods to test the literal truth of the Aggadah>, the non legalistic and narrative portions of the Talmud. – wikipedia.org

De’ Rossi stated: "OUR HOLY SITE [Moriah] HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ANY OTHER PEOPLE" (p.250). – Dei Rossi, Light of The Eyes, p. 250, quoted from Dr. Earnest L. Martin, http://www.askelm.com/..., Major "Keys" in Discovering the Lost Temples of Jerusalem

According to all of these Jewish (and Christian) scholars, the site of the Temple had not been built on after its destruction of 70 AD. It had not been the site of any sacred building for any other nation or religion. However, as Tuvia Sagiv explains, every Gentile power to control Jerusalem since 70 AD had built on the Moriah Platform including the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Muslims.

And so it looks in the period of the second and the third century. Then, the Christian came and destroyed the pagan project. And the Arabs came in the seventh century and they built on the remains of the Roman Jupiter temple, their holy places. And maybe the solution to one of our main problems nowadays is combine the two projects together. Let us reveal and find and get again the Jewish Temple in between the two Muslim projects. 1:07:45 – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 1 hour, 6 minutes, and 34 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

Clearly then, the Moriah Platform is not the site of the Temple. One had been built on. The other had not.

Likewise, Christian reports from the middle ages also indicate that neither the Romans nor the Christians had built upon the Temple site. The Christians did not build on the site out of reverence for Christ’s prophecy that not one stone would remain on another. In the quote below, notice that Eutychius, the ninth century Arabic Christian historian, confirms that the Temple site was, in fact, a depository for garbage. And yet we know that the Byzantines built at least one church on the Moriah Platform at the site of the Dome of the Rock (the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John).

Patriarch Eutychius of Alexandria – Eutychius or Sa'id ibn Batriq or Bitriq, born 10 September 877, d. 12 May 940^[1] was one of the first Arabic Christian writers. He is most famous for the extensive chronicle that he compiled. – wikipedia.org

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

Temple Mount – About 325 it is believed that Constantine's mother, St. Helena, built a small church on the Mount in the 4th century, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later on enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom. The church was later destroyed and on its ruins the Dome of the Rock was built.^[9] Since it is known that Helena ordered the Temple of Venus to the west of the Temple Mount to be torn down to construct the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, presumably she also ordered the Temple of Jupiter on the Temple Mount to be torn down to construct the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John. – wikipedia.org

These accounts from Jews, Christians, and Muslims regarding the site of the Jewish Temple cannot be reconciled with the history of the Moriah Platform. After its destruction, the former site of the Temple was a farm plowed by oxen, a wilderness, a garbage dump, it had never been built on, and it was still in ruins in the eleventh century. On the other hand, the Moriah Platform had been in constant use as the site of some of the sacred buildings of the Romans, Byzantine Christians, and Muslims.