Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
314 End Times Prophecy (Eschatology)


Premillennial Temple Study

Premillennial Temple Study Part 1
Premillennial Temple Study Part 2
Premillennial Temple Study Part 3
Premillennial Temple Study Part 4
Premillennial Temple Study Part 5
Premillennial Temple Study Part 6
Premillennial Temple Study Part 7
Premillennial Temple Study Part 8
Premillennial Temple Study Part 9
Premillennial Temple Study Part 10
Premillennial Temple Study Part 11
Premillennial Temple Study Part 12
Premillennial Temple Study Part 13
Premillennial Temple Study Part 14
Premillennial Temple Study Part 15


 

Late Dating Traditions Drive the Moriah Platform Views

 

As we’ve seen the historical evidence that is available from before the Temple’s destruction in 70 AD all points toward a Temple site south of the Moriah Platform very near to Davidic Jerusalem. We have even seen some significant evidence from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sources from the post-Temple period that warrants this same conclusion. How then is it the case that today the most widely held view is that the Temple was on the Moriah Platform? An explanation to this important question is not very difficult to come by.

 

It is a matter of sound archeological practice that historical data from later periods should be accorded less reliability than eyewitness sources. In an archeological inquiry one must have solid reasons for discarding eyewitness accounts in light of the later second, third, or fourth generation documents. Justifiable grounds for dismissing an eyewitness report in favor of a later document would require more than disagreement between the two sources themselves. In such cases, reason would warrant dismissing a later account in favor of an earlier eyewitness testimony, not the other way around.

 

Likewise, by the time of the early Byzantine period the location of religious sites tended to be determined by superstitious and visionary means rather than historical or scientific research. The development of this situation is easily understood.

 

First, the Temple had been destroyed for hundreds of years. And there were no longer any living eyewitnesses of the original structures or their locations. Therefore, pilgrims who wished to experience the holy places of the bible had to turn to an alternative source for locating these sites. Without access to first-hand sources or historical documentaion, they turned instead to dreams, visions, and miraculous claims.

 

Sozomen, the fifth century historian reports on the common manner of locating religious sites and relics in Jerusalem. Below is an example describing the discovery of the alleged site of Christ’s tomb and the alleged cross on which Christ was crucified. In his writings, Sozomen chronicles a number of discoveries of sacred places and artifacts using visions, dreams, and divine relevelation.

 

It was no easy matter to discover either this relic or the Lord’s sepulchre…at length, however, the place was discovered…but it seems more accordanct with truth to suppose that God revealed the facts by means of signs and dreams; for I do not think that human information is requisite when God thinks it best to make manifest the same….more Divine information than could be furnished by man was therefore necessary… – Sozomen, Ecclessiastical History, Book II, Chapter 1

 

Sozomen – Salminius Hermias Sozomenus[1] (c. 400 - c. 450) was a historian of the Christian church. – wikipedia.org

 

Second, from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem until the Ottoman Period there were many occasions when Jews were either complete banned from entering Jerusalem or when they were restricted to entering only one time a year. This was particularly true in the earlier centuries after the Temple was destroyed. Such severe limitations on Jewish access to Jerusalem and the site of the former Temple would surely have had a tremendous impact on the ability to preserve the locations of these important sites.

 

Western Wall Roman Empire and rise of Christianity 100–500 CE – In the early centuries of the Common Era, after the Roman defeat of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, Jews were banned from Jerusalem. There is some evidence that Roman emperors in the 2nd and 3rd centuries did permit them to visit the city to worship on the Mount of Olives and sometimes on the Temple Mount itself.[13] When the empire became Christian under Constantine I, they were given permission to enter the city once a year, on the ninth day of the month of Av, to lament the loss of the Temple at the wall.[14] The Bordeaux Pilgrim, written in 333 CE, suggests that it was probably to the perforated stone or the Rock of Moriah, "to which the Jews come every year and anoint it, bewail themselves with groans, rend their garments, and so depart". This was because an Imperial decree from Rome barred Jews from living in Jerusalem. Just once per year they were permitted to return and bitterly grieve about the fate of their people. Comparable accounts survive, including those by the Church Father, Gregory of Nazianzus and by Jerome in his commentary to Zephaniah written in the year 392 CE. In the 4th century, Christian sources reveal that the Jews encountered great difficulty in buying the right to pray near the Western Wall, at least on the 9th of Av.[13] In 425 CE, the Jews of the Galilee wrote to Byzantine empress Aelia Eudocia seeking permission to pray by the ruins of the Temple. Permission was granted and they were officially permitted to resettle in Jerusalem.[15] - wikipedia.org

 

Temple Mount After the Third Jewish Revolt failed, all Jews were forbidden on pain of death from entering the city.- wikipedia.org

 

Aelia Capitolina – The city was without walls, protected by a light garrison of the Tenth Legion, during the Late Roman Period. The detachment at Jerusalem, which apparently encamped all over the city’s western hill, was responsible for preventing Jews from returning to the city. Roman enforcement of this prohibition continued through the fourth century. – wikipedia.org

 

Third, as we have seen recorded in earliest records, the destruction of the Temple was complete. The desolation involved the walls being overthrown and dug up to the foundations, leaving nothing to identify the site. And Jews had been banned from living in or entering Jerusalem for several hundred years. The lack of archeological remains as well as remains which had been buried for many centuries would also have significantly contributed to an inability to reliably identify former sacred sites.

 

Imagine if all of the monuments of Washington DC were completely destroyed to their foundations and then buried. Suppose then that Americans were not permitted to enter the city for 300 years. Such developments would surely impede their ability to locate the exact sites of the former monuments (particularly if there were no photos or videos, etc. to record the locations).

 

In light of these facts, devoted pilgrims wishing to see important biblical sites were forced to depend on less than reliable methodologies and information. Instead, traditions were formed largely from conjecture and claims of divine revelation.

 

One significant example of this trend is the false location of Davidic Jerusalem, which persisted until the late 1800’s. For almost 1400 years, it was mistakenly held that the site of Davidic Jerusalem was west of the Tyropoeon Valley on the western ridge.

 

Jerusalem – The name of Mount Zion has been applied to the western hill from the time of Constantine the Great to the present day. – Smith’s Bible Dictionary

 

6. ZionThe Name "Zion" in Christian Times: Among the earlier Christian writers who mention "Zion," Origen used it as equivalent to the Temple Hill, but in the 4th century writers commence to localize it up the southern part of the western hill. – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

 

Indeed, as late as 1875 C.E. it was commonly accepted by all scholars of all religious persuasions that the southwest hill was certainly (and without the slightest doubt) the true “Mount Zion” of the Bible. – Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 120, Footnote 156

 

Jerusalem The name of MOUNT ZION has been applied to the western hill from the time of Constantine to the present day. – Smith’s Bible Dictionary, http://www.biblestudytools.com/...

 

This erroneous view was the result of pilgrim traditions dating from the Middle Ages.

 

Zion – Mount Zion – Mount Zion is also the modern name of a hill south of the Old City's Armenian Quarter—the result of a misnomer dating from the Middle Ages when pilgrims mistook the relatively large, flat summit for the original site of the City of David. – wikipedia.org

 

6. ZionThe Name "Zion" in Christian Times: Among the earlier Christian writers who mention "Zion," Origen used it as equivalent to the Temple Hill, but in the 4th century writers commence to localize it up the southern part of the western hill. It was a period when Biblical topography was settled in a very arbitrary manner, without any scientific or critical examination of the evidence, and this tradition once established remained, like many such traditions, undisputed until very recent years. – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

 

This point of view persisted until a little over a century ago. At that time, historical and archeological evidence overturned the conventional view and rightly established that the historic location of Davidic Jerusalem was on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge east of the Tyropoeon Valley.

 

In his book, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, Dr. Ernest L. Martin notes that the mistaken location of David’s Jerusalem on the western ridge wasn’t just the view of pious, but uneducated pilgrims. Rather, it was the universal view until the last decades of the nineteenth century. According to Martin, even Professor Edward Robinson, “the Father of Biblical Geography,” held to this misidentification.

 

For 1500 years Christian authorities believed (or 1200 years for Muslims and 800 years for Jews) that the site of “Mount Zion” was the southwest hill of Jerusalem. As late as 1856 Professor Robinson (one of the early historians of Jerusalem) acclaimed that 20 years of intense research regarding the geography of Jerusalem demonstrated that the position of Zion being on the southwest hill was “unassailed” in the opinion of the top scholars and religious authorities in the world (George Adam Smith, Jerusalem, vol. I., p.165) – quoted from Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 109, Footnote 144

 

Edward Robinson Edward Robinson (1794-1863) was an American biblical scholar, known as the "Father of Biblical Geography"….Robinson traveled to Palestine in 1838 in the company of Rev. Eli Smith, leading to the publication of Biblical Researches in Palestine and Adjacent Countries for which he was awarded the Gold Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1842. Robinson discovered the tunnel dug by Hezekiah shortly before the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701/02 BCE and the inscription at the tunnel's center. Robinson's Arch in the Old City of Jerusalem is named for him. – wikipedia.org

 

This misplacing of Davidic Jerusalem to the western hill had lasted for some fourteen centuries. To be fair, this erroneous location wasn’t based entirely upon pilgrim speculation. Some of the rationale came from the discovery of a large, flat area on the top of the western ridge.

 

Zion – Mount Zion – Mount Zion is also the modern name of a hill south of the Old City's Armenian Quarter—the result of a misnomer dating from the Middle Ages when pilgrims mistook the relatively large, flat summit for the original site of the City of David. – wikipedia.org

 

It is well known that site where Solomon built the Temple was previously a threshing floor belonging to Ornan (Araunah) the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:18-25, 1 Chronicles 21:15-28, 2 Chronicles 3:1).

 

2 Chronicles 3:1 Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

 

As we have seen, a threshing floor is typically flat place where grain could be separated from the chaff usually through being trampled (or crushed) and then collected. For this reason threshing floors are usually found on a level surface in a spot exposed to wind, such as an elevated area.

 

A threshing floor is a specially flattened surface made either of rock or beaten earth where a farmer would thresh the grain harvest. The threshing floor was either owned by the entire village or by a single family. It was usually located outside the village in a place exposed to the wind. – wikipedia.org

 

Threshing is the process of loosening the edible part of cereal grain from the scaly, inedible chaff that surrounds it. It is the step in grain preparation before winnowing, which separates the loosened chaff from the grain. Threshing does not remove the bran from the grain. Threshing may be done by beating the grain using a flail on a threshing floor. However, in developed areas it is now mostly done by machine, usually by a combine harvester, which threshes as well as harvesting the plant and cleaning the grain). Another traditional method of threshing is to make donkeys or oxen walk in circles on the grain on a hard surface. A modern version of this in some areas is to spread the grain on the surface of a country road so the grain may be threshed by the wheels of passing vehicles. – wikipedia.org

 

Josephus himself reports that the place where Solomon built the Temple was on top of a strong hill with a plain at its peak.

 

1. NOW this temple, as I have already said, was built upon a strong hill. At first the plain at the top was hardly sufficient for the holy house and the altar – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1

 

With this in mind it is easy to understand how medieval pilgrims and later scholars could sincerely misidentify the location of David’s Jerusalem. Though they were in error, their error may have been based in part on several very reliable facts. The first fact is that the Temple was built on a level, summit at the top of a mountain ridge. The second fact is that the Temple of Solomon was within the vicinity of ancient Jerusalem. (We should note that neither of these two facts is disputed today.) With these facts in mind, the discovery of a level area at the top of the western ridge might have easily lead them conclude this was the site of Davidic Jerusalem.

 

Where then did the medieval pilgrims and nineteenth-century scholars go wrong? The error of the medieval pilgrims can easily be attributed to the dominance of superstition over science as a means for locating sacred sites. This approach was coupled with a lack of historical documentation and a lack of observable archeological remains. In this context the erroneous location of Davidic Jerusalem emerged. However the tradition first emerged, by the nineteenth century, biblical and archeological scholars had surely composed a large collection of historical and archeological arguments supporting this false site on the western hill. Despite those arguments their conclusion was wrong.

 

If we are to avoid their error, we must first identify that error. And to identify it we must be careful not to oversimplify or mischaracterize it. By the nineteenth century many prominent, well-trained, and sincere, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars and laymen had come to mistakenly accept the wrong location for David’s Jerusalem. It wouldn’t be fair to say that these people were entirely ignorant of historical or archeological data. Surely, they had Josephus’ texts and the biblical descriptions to say the least. These texts themselves provide ample reason to question a western-hill location. It seems that the only fair way to understand their mistake is to conclude that they were fitting the archeological evidence to work with a preconceived and popular tradition. That tradition itself had emerged in the absence of sound historical or archeological information.

 

This is well-known by scholars today. At the time when Davidic Jerusalem was misplaced to the western ridge, biblical sites were chosen on the basis of arbitrary declarations by potentates and the uninvestigated claims of old men rather than upon sound, scientific, historical, or archeological grounds.

 

6. ZionThe Name "Zion" in Christian Times: Among the earlier Christian writers who mention "Zion," Origen used it as equivalent to the Temple Hill, but in the 4th century writers commence to localize it up the southern part of the western hill. It was a period when Biblical topography was settled in a very arbitrary manner, without any scientific or critical examination of the evidence, and this tradition once established remained, like many such traditions, undisputed until very recent years. – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

 

What corrected the western-hill misidentification of David’s Jerusalem was a commitment to letting the historical and archeological data speak without trying to fit them into our preconceived, popular, or traditional views.

 

In the late 1800’s, W.F. Birch’s commitment to scientific research over religious traditions led the way. The archeological discovery of Hezekiah’s tunnel on the south-central ridge confirmed the biblical and historical deductions. As a result, Davidic Jerusalem was properly placed back on the southern portion of the central ridge after over 1400 years of mistaken identity.

 

6. ZionThe Name "Zion" in Christian Times: Among the earlier Christian writers who mention "Zion," Origen used it as equivalent to the Temple Hill, but in the 4th century writers commence to localize it up the southern part of the western hill. It was a period when Biblical topography was settled in a very arbitrary manner, without any scientific or critical examination of the evidence, and this tradition once established remained, like many such traditions, undisputed until very recent years. To W. F. Birch belongs much of the credit for the promulgation of the newer views which now receive the adherence of almost every living authority on the topography of Jerusalem. – The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

 

Footnote 156: Indeed, as late as 1875 C.E. it was commonly accepted by all scholars of all religious persuasions that the southwest hill was certainly (and without the slightest doubt) the true “Mount Zion” of the Bible. It was only with the vigorous research of Professor Birch in England (along with the discovery of Hezekiah’s tunnel in 1880 C.E.) that within a score of years this “certain and sacrosanct” belief was proved wrong and scholars replaced “Mount Zion” rightfully on the southeast ridge. – Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 120

 

This historic error is informative for us as we continue our investigation.

 

Just for a moment let us consider the tremendous change that took place at the close of the nineteenth century. In the mid-1800’s a new theory emerged which challenged conventional thinking that had gone unquestioned for well over a thousand years. This new view threatened the devout religious convictions that had become intertwined with the traditional view. Though today we can easily see the demonstrable nature of their error, there can be little doubt that old theory was not relinquished easily in the minds of its adherents. The prospect of showing the academic and religious world of the time that the established view was wrong must have seemed insurmountable. And yet error eventually gave way to fact. And, over the course of several short decades an unprecedented revolution had overturned the reigning archeological understanding of ancient Jerusalem.

 

Given this precedent it would not be unexpected for a similar misidentification regarding the location of the Temple itself to have likewise arisen during the same period from false religious traditions. And this is exactly what we do find.

 

Azariah dei Rossi, the Jewish chronicler of the sixteenth century, identifies some of the wrong traditions that were present among the Jews of his day.

 

Azariah dei RossiAzariah 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. His views were sharply criticised by Judah Loew ben Bezalel (the Maharal of Prague) in the latter's Be'er ha-Golah. Dei Rossi's great work, Me'or Enayim ("Light of the Eyes") (Mantua, 1573-75; Berlin, 1794; Vienna, 1829; Vilna, 1863-66), includes the two works already mentioned and a third entitled Imre Binah. The latter is divided into four parts; the first part contains a survey of the Jews at the time of the Second Temple, narrates the origin of the Septuagint, points out the contradictions between some of the beliefs of the Talmudists and the proved results of scientific research, records the origin of the Jewish colonies in Alexandria and Cyrene, chronicles the wars of Bar KokhbaRomans, etc. Dei Rossi quotes from the writings of Philo, whose orthodoxy he questions. He criticizes him for having allegorized Biblical narratives of facts, and points out that the Alexandrian philosopher never gives the traditional interpretation of the Biblical text. In the second part Dei Rossi criticizes a number of the assertions of the Talmudists (many of his criticisms being repeated by later commentators), and gives explanations of various aggadic passages which can not be taken literally (as, for instance, the aggadah which attributes the death of Titus to a gnat which entered his brain while he was returning to Rome). The third part is devoted to a study of Jewish chronology and translations from the writings of Philo, Josephus, and others, with commentaries. The fourth part deals with Jewish archeology, describing the shapes of the priestly garments and the glory of the Second Temple, and giving the history of Queen Helen and her two sons. – wikipedia.org

 

One of the important statements that dei Rossi makes is his affirmation of David Kimchi (Radaq) and Maimonides (Rambam) that there had never been a house of prayer for any other people built on the site of the Temple.

 

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

 

Now note what De’ Rossi concluded in his observation for his own generation. He said that "the original Jerusalem" was located in an area "in which, even in his own time [the time of Abarbanel], and nowadays [also in the time of De’Rossi] NO ARAB WOULD PITCH HIS TENT" (p.250). 36 – 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

 

Again, dei Rossi’s assertion that there had never been a Gentile holy place on the site of the Jewish Temple demonstrates that even as late as the sixteenth century, Jewish scholarship did not hold that the Temple was built on the Moriah Platform or the Dome of the Rock. To the contrary, as we have said, every Gentile power to control Jerusalem since 70 AD had built on the Moriah Platform including the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Muslims. And yet Jewish scholarship through the sixteenth century continued to hold that the site of the Temple had not been built upon.

 

Dei Rossi goes on to report that, by the Renaissance Era, Jewish traditions had erroneously misplaced Jerusalem and the Temple north of its former location.

 

De’ Rossi in his book "Light of the Eyes," 35 relates a belief that was widespread in the sixteenth century among scholarly Jews.…De’ Rossi wrote authoritatively to assure the Jews of his time that they were wrong to think that Hadrian had built Aelia several miles north from the original site of the Jerusalem of David and Herod. – 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

 

Note what De’ Rossi said…Other Jews were saying that "the present site of Mount Moriah [where the Temple was once built] was about five miles away from Jerusalem [north of the original Jerusalem of David and Herod]" (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

 

Dei Rossi corrected these flawed traditions by asserting that Jerusalem was not miles north of its original location, but that it had merely been expanded northward.

 

De’ Rossi’s exact statement was: "The Gentile historians, whose evidence he [Abarbanel] cites for the life of Hadrian and [the] restoration of Jerusalem [under the name Aelia], simply state that he [Hadrian] destroyed it [completely destroyed Herod’s Jerusalem] and then enlarged it … enlarged it to the north so that the cemeteries which had been an arrow’s shot outside the city came within the walls [came within the north and west walls]." – Dei Rossi, Light of The Eyes, quoted from Dr. Earnest L. Martin, http://www.askelm.com/..., Major "Keys" in Discovering the Lost Temples of Jerusalem

 

There are several interesting things that we must note from dei Rossi’s account of the prominent traditions at his time. First, dei Rossi showed that seventeenth century Jerusalem was not several miles north of it original location. He did, however, agree that after the Temple was destroyed, the city had been expanded northward from its original position. Today we know that dei Rossi was correct. The original location of Jerusalem was on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge, south of the Moriah Platform.

 

Second, dei Rossi records that popular Jewish thinking just 500 years ago did not think that the Moriah Platform of Jerusalem was the original site of the Temple. Instead, it was commonly believed that the Jerusalem of the post-Temple period had been moved by the Romans several miles north of its original location. This demonstrates that the modern traditions claiming that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform were not a constantly held belief among Jews since the first century. Instead, just 500 years ago, a prominent view among Jews was that the Jerusalem of today wasn’t even the original site of Jerusalem. The logical correlarry is that these Jews believed that the Temple site was not anywhere within the confines of modern Jerusalem, including the area of the Moriah Platform.

 

So, from dei Rossi we learn that traditional conventions of today regarding the Temple site do not have historical roots in antiquity. This fact was also indicated by Ernest L. Martin’s report that between the fourth and eleventh centuries there were four different locations for the Temple that were outside the Moriah Platform.

 

There have been four areas of Jerusalem outside the perimeters of the Haram esh-Sharif (accepted by people from the 4th century to the 11th century of our era) that were also thought to be the site of the Temple. In all, this makes eleven different areas in very dissimilar sections of the Haram and in various locations in Jerusalem that have been claimed to be the true site.The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, Ernest L. Martin, ASK Publications, P.O. Box 25000, Portland, OR 97298-0990. Copyright 2000 Ernest L. Martin, p.109-110

 

Clearly, the Middle Ages wreaked havoc on the understanding of historical sites in Jerusalem. In this climate, various views took hold among Jews, Christians, and Muslims that were not founded on historically reliable facts. Because of these regrettable precedents we should be weary of any position which assumes too much about its basic conclusion. Unfortunately, however, it is the case that the views which claim the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform do rely heavily on a common assumption.

 

Discussing his presentation of archeological features of the Moriah Platform, Dr. Asher Kaufman indicates the necessity of assuming that the archeology of the Moriah Platform is connected to the second Temple.

 

And we’ve got to assume that the archeological evidence that we’ve seen today has some connection with the second Temple. - Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 20 minutes and 5 seconds,  http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

 

Why must it simply be assumed that the archeology of the Moriah Platform has some connection with the second Temple? If there are facts that prove this connection, then the connection is proven and doesn’t need to be assumed. If however, evidence doesn’t demand a connection between the Temple and the Moriah Platform, how can we justify assuming such a connection?

 

Likewise, Dan Bahat makes a similar admission while attempting to explain why the dimensions for the Temple provided in the Mishnah don’t match those of the Moriah Platform. In the quote below, Bahat circumvents the fact that the Mishnah’s description of the Temple mount doesn’t fit the Moriah Platform. He does so by assuming that the Mishnah only describes the Temple itself and that the Moriah Platform is the Herodian addition to that Temple mount.

 

I am able to tell you one thing. I can make an equation. 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/...

 

Without this assumption, Bahat would be left with the fact that the Mishnah does not describe the Moriah Platform. Bahat is clearly willing to make significant assumptions in order to identify the Moriah Platform as the site of the Temple.

 

Perhaps more clear is the following statement also from Bahat. In the quote below, Bahat directly articulates his assumption that investigation of the Temple’s location begins with the axiom that the “Temple Mount” (the Moriah Platform) is the site of Herod’s Temple.

 

And we must start with an axiom. The present Temple Mount is the one which was built by Herod the Great. Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 22 minutes and 25 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

 

Again, we must ask why we should start with the axiom that the Moriah Platform is the Temple mount of Herod? If there is evidence to this effect then we need not start by assuming this axiom. On the other hand, if the evidence doesn’t warrant this conclusion, then we cannot justify assuming this axiom.

 

A study of the assumptions, methods, and proofs offered by the Moriah Platform Views results in the following pattern. First, assume that the Temple was located somewhere on the Moriah Platform. Second, locate a square area of either 750 feet or 860 feet somewhere on the platform using archeological features that are available. Third, conclude that the square area is the site of the Temple.

 

While this is of course an oversimplification, it does adequately convey the manner in which proof for Temple locations on the Moriah Platform are supported. In each case, the idea that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform is an unquestioned premise. The sole remained goal is to then find the exact location of the Temple within the platform using a method not unlike our simplification above.

 

Even Tuvia Sagiv, who critically evaluates the traditioinal Dome of the Rock claim using historical evidences, only relocates the Temple as far south on the Moriah Platform as elevation issues require. Never once is evidence used to justify the assumption that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform. Instead, historical reports and descriptions are bent this way and that in order to accommodate a location of the Temple on the Moriah Platform. But surely, an evidentiary demonstration is necessary in light of the significance of the subject itself, in light of the mistaken locations of earlier times, and in light of the fact that various sites on and off the Moriah Platform have been proposed over the centuries.

 

In conclusion we must note the significance of earlier misidentifications and unsound methodologies. The fact that for 1,400 years Davidic Jerusalem was mislocated to the western ridge provides serious reason to be suspicious of conclusions that are heavily based on traditional assumptions. Once Davidic Jerusalem is misplaced, the site of the Temple is undoubtedly obscured as well. The two go hand and hand. Likewise, the misplacement of Davidic Jerusalem and the Renaissance concept that modern Jerusalem was miles north of the original site both demonstrate that earlier generations of Jews did not hold to today’s conclusion that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform. The existence of four other sites for the Temple outside the Moriah Platform is further evidence of this fact. Because of these unfortunate historical realities, we must surrender any theory of the Temple’s location which based on assumptions, unreliable methodologies, and the dismissal of contrary evidence.

 

 

 

No Archeological Excavation on the Moriah Platform

 

The unreliability of assuming that the Temple was located on the Moriah Platform is further complicated by an additional fact. As Dan Bahat, the former chief archeologist for the Jerusalem district explains, archeological excavation of the Moriah Platform is completely restricted.

 

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

 

Likewise, Asher Kaufman also speaks to the highly restricted nature of archeological work on the Moriah Platform. In his presentation Kaufman posits what might be found if just one square meter could be excavated on the platform. In doing so, Kaufman attests to the fact that even such minimal excavation work as this is not permitted today.

 

And if we could only dig today one meter by one meter, a small area, and I could say, “Dig here and we shall find a wall,” and I’m sure we shall find a wall. - Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 36 minutes and 24 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

 

Below Kaufman is first asked to comment on what would be possible if he were allowed to dig on the Moriah Platform. Again, Kaufman’s response indicates the severe restriction against archeological investigations of the platform itself. The second question highlights that the restriction pertains even to a limitation of using superficial, non-invasive investigative techniques.

 

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

 

Similarly, Tuvia Sagiv also notes that archeological research of the Moriah Platform is not permitted.

 

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

 

This same limitation on archeological research on the Moriah Platform has existed for centuries. Charles Warren, the renowned, English surveyer of Jerusalem, was unable to dig on the Moriah Platform.

 

Charles Warren In 1867, Warren went to Palestine with the Palestine Exploration Fund. He conducted the first major excavations of Jerusalem, thereby ushering in a new age of Biblical archaeology. – wikipedia.org

 

Just about here there is a claim that there is a moat, that there was a moat there. Warren refers to it in his book of 1884. But he says, he thinks that, and if you read that very carefully, up here, and I haven’t got the statement with me, but apparently there was a moat there. But he couldn’t dig. He surely plans a moat about, in man’s dimensions, about 150 feet wide and I think 20 feet deep. But he couldn’t dig. He wasn’t allowed to dig. – Dr. Asher S. Kaufman, The Northern Location of the Temples, 47 minutes and 20 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

 

The Muslim WAQF, which has administered the Moriah Platform since 1187 AD restricts excavation on the site. This organization retained control of the platform even after the Six-Day War of 1967.

 

Temple Mount – An Islamic Waqf has managed the Temple Mount continuously since the Muslim reconquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187. On 7 June 1967, soon after Israel had taken control of the area during the Six-Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol assured that "no harm whatsoever shall come to the places sacred to all religions". Together with the extension of Israeli jurisdiction and administration over east Jerusalem, the Knesset passed the Preservation of the Holy Places Law,[17] ensuring protection of the Holy Places against desecration, as well as freedom of access thereto.[18] Israel agreed to leave administration of the site in the hands of the Waqf. – wikipedia.org

 

As Kaufman has indicated above, the severe limitation on archeological research and excavation of the Moriah Platform forces others like Tuvia Sagiv to rely on superficial scanning such as the use of infrared technology.

 

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/...

 

Sagiv’s remarks below highlight the unavoidable and critical problem created by this inability to excavate on the Moriah Platform. As he explains, without being able to dig on the platform itself, archeologists are forced to assure us of the Temple’s existence on the Moriah Platform largely through the use of other means.

 

So, I’ve done only the beginning only to show that we can get a lot of information without digging in the area which can help us to get to assure ourselves that this is right. That the Temple is hidden there. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 57 minutes and 25 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

 

Sagiv’s comments show that without being able to perform invasive archeological research on the Moriah Platform itself, we can only assume that the Temple was located on the platform. Without the benefit of direct archeological research on the platform itself supporters of the Moriah Platform Views must find some peripheral reason to assure others that this assumption is correct. As Bahat, Kaufman, and Sagiv all clearly explain, support for their theories is not based on archeological research done on the Moriah Platform. This fact is very alarming and undermines any seemingly compelling arguments that they make. Certainly, nineteenth century archeologists who misplaced Davidic Jerusalem on the western ridge were able to offer similar support for their erroneous conclusions.

 

As we leave this portion of our study we take note of the similarity between the approaches which locate the Temple on the Moriah Platform and the approaches of previous generations. Both groups seem content to rely on a willingness to make assumptions amidst a lack of genuine, archeological investigation and historical accounting. Limited excavative ability combined with presumption does not provide a compelling counter-balance to the large set of biblical, historical, and archeological evidences indicating that the Temple was south of the Moriah Platform.

 

Additionally, how much historical evidence do we need before we realize the assumption that the Temple was on the Moriah Platform is not sound? If the historical data that we have surveyed indicating that the Temple was south of the platform isn’t enough to sufficiently overturn the Moriah Platform assumption, what would be enough? If this evidence isn’t enough, then the assumption that the Temple was on the Moriah Platform is, in fact, unfalsifiable. In scientific terms, this means that it is held to be true without regard for what the evidence has to say on the matter. Any theory that operates in this manner is not a representation of scientifically sound investigation or fact. No such view should ever be accepted by those who are interested in the historical reality of the Temple’s location.

 

In subsequent sections we will continue to demonstrate how much of the accepted support for locating the Temple on the Moriah Platform is based on assumptions that are not substantiated by historical data.

 

 

 

Today’s Western Wall Was Not Part of the Temple

 

In our previous section we documented the erroneous traditions that emerged during the Medieval Era regarding the important sites of Jerusalem from the biblical period. Christians had identified the site of Christ’s tomb largely relying upon supposedly divine revelations and dreams. Jewish and Christian scholars up until 150 years ago falsely identified Davidic Jerusalem on the western ridge, rather than on the southern portion of the Moriah ridge east of the Tyropoeon Valley. Lastly, we saw a prominent Jewish view of the sixteenth century which even asserted that biblical Jerusalem was 5 miles south of where the current city of Jerusalem sits, denying any connection of the modern city to the original Jerusalem. Obviously, traditions that originate in this period should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism unless they are directly corroborated by solid historical references from earlier times.

 

In light of this information, we must consider the traditional view of today regarding the Western Wall (Wailing Wall) of the Moriah Platform. The first historical evidence we have of Jews praying at the Western Wall of the Moriah Platform dates to the sixteenth century. Tuvia Sagiv makes reference to this fact in his presention on the Temple mount.

 

The western wall is about five hundred meters. From all these five hundred meters, the Jews are praying in the last four hundred years in this area…. There is no sources. Nothing is written about it. We are praying it.  – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 13 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

 

As Sagiv noted, Jewish prayer at the Western Wall of the Moriah Platform can only be documented beginning in the early Ottoman Period at around 1625 AD.

 

Western Wall – Ottoman period 1517–1917 – In the second half of the 16th century, Suleiman the Magnificent gave the Jews rights to worship at the Western Wall and had his court architect Sinan build an oratory for them there.[25][26] In 1625 arranged prayers at the Wall are mentioned for the first time by a scholar whose name has not been preserved. Rabbi Gedaliah of Semitizi, who went to Jerusalem in the year 1699, writes that scrolls of the Law were brought to the Wall on occasions of public distress and calamity.[27] - wikipedia.org

 

In his presentation, Sagiv explains that the Western Wall of the Moriah Platform, known as the Wailing Wall has, nothing to do with the Jewish Temple.

 

And it means that the Wailing Wall, what we see, the Wailing Wall, where Jews are praying here, has nothing to do with the Jewish Temple. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 47 minutes and 38 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html

 

To be clear, earlier texts do speak of Jewish devotion to a western wall.

 

Western Wall Middle Ages 500–1500There are several Jewish authors of the 10th and 11th centuries, e.g., Aaron ben Meïr, Samuel ben Paltiel, Solomon ben Judah and others, who write about the Jews resorting to the Western Wall for devotional purposes.[16] The Scroll of Ahimaaz, written in 1050 CE, distinctly describes the Western Wall as a place of prayer for the Jews.[17] Shortly before the Crusader period a synagogue stood at the site.[18] Issac Heilo, a Jewish traveler writing in the year 1333, talks of an Arab king who conquered Palestine from the Christians. (He possibly refers to the capture of Jerusalem by Umar in 637.) The king had made an oath that should he succeed in conquering Jerusalem, he would restore the ruins of the Temple. After his victory, he sought out the ruins, but they had been hidden beneath heaps of rubbish. An old man approached the king saying “I will tell you where the Temple lies, but I want you to swear that you will leave us the Western Wall.” After promising, the king was shown where the ruins lay buried. The king ordered the place be cleared and “built a magnificent mosque and left the Western Wall for the Jews, who resorted there to pray.”[19] Cheilo also noted that "It is this Western Wall which stands before the temple of Omar ibn al Khattab, and which is called the Gate of Mercy. The Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related. Today, this wall is one of the seven wonders of the Holy City."[20] He refers to Benjamin of Tudela who, during the late Crusader Period in around 1167 CE, wrote that "In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and hither come all the Jews to pray before the Wall in the open court".[21] - wikipedia.org

 

However, these Medeival accounts do not validate the idea that devout Jews have always held the Moriah Platform to have a sacred connection to their Temple. Instead, early accounts actually indicate the opposite. Jews of earlier periods were interested in a western wall of the Temple itself, not the Western Wall of the Moriah Platform that is venerated today. Various historical sources confirm this fact.

 

First, there is the account of Rabbi Isaac ben Joseph from the thirteenth century which we have already looked at. Isaac ben Joseph reported that at the time of Umar (in the seventh century AD) the Temple was in ruins except for a single wall.

 

Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil – Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (13th century) was a French rabbi and Tosefist who flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century. – wikipedia.org

 

In the words of a Jewish visitor in 1334 C.E., Isaac ben Joseph: The king, who had made a vow to build up again the ruins of the sacred edifice, if God put the Holy City in his power, demanded of the Jews that they should make known the ruins to him. For the uncircumcised in their hate against the people of God, had heaped rubbish and filth over the spot, so that no one knew exactly where the ruins stood. Now there was an old man then living who said: “If the king will take an oath to preserve the wall, I will discover unto him the place where the ruins of the Temple were.” So the king straightway placed his hand on the thigh of the old man and swore an oath to do what he demanded. When he had shown him the ruins of the Temple under a mound of defilements, the king had the ruins cleared and cleansed, taking part in the cleansing himself, until they were all fair and clean. After that he had them all set up again, with the exception of the wall, and made them a very beautiful Temple, which he consecrated to his God. (Elkin N. Adler, Jewish Travelers: A Treasury of Travelogues from Nine Centuries, 2nd ed. [New York: Hermon Books, 1966], pp.130-1. - quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 243

 

Western Wall – Issac Heilo, a Jewish traveler writing in the year 1333, talks of an Arab king who conquered Palestine from the Christians. (He possibly refers to the capture of Jerusalem by Umar in 637.) The king had made an oath that should he succeed in conquering Jerusalem, he would restore the ruins of the Temple. After his victory, he sought out the ruins, but they had been hidden beneath heaps of rubbish. An old man approached the king saying “I will tell you where the Temple lies, but I want you to swear that you will leave us the Western Wall.” After promising, the king was shown where the ruins lay buried. The king ordered the place be cleared and “built a magnificent mosque and left the Western Wall for the Jews, who resorted there to pray.”[19] Cheilo also noted that "It is this Western Wall which stands before the temple of Omar ibn al Khattab, and which is called the Gate of Mercy. The Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related. - wikipedia.org

 

As we noted earlier, the mosque built by Umar was not the Dome of the Rock.

 

Al-Aqsa Mosque – The al-Aqsa Mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE. – wikipedia.org

 

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

 

The Dome of the Rock was built by one of Umar’s successors over 40 years after Umar’s death. So, the site where Umar built a shrine is not the Dome of the Rock.

 

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

 

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

 

Second, Isaac ben Joseph’s account indicates that Umar used the stones of the Temple to build his mosque. However, in accordance with his promise, Umar did not use the stones of the western wall that was still standing at that time. For this reason, ben Joseph’s western wall could not have been the western retaining wall of the Moriah Platform. The western wall of of the Moriah Platform was a retaining wall for the very structure that Umar and later Muslims built their sacred sites upon. Consequently, stones could not have been taken from the Moriah Platform’s western retaining wall without undemining the integrity of the entire structure. Therefore, ben Joseph’s western wall simply cannot be the western wall of the Moriah Platform. Ben Joseph’s wall was in danger of being dismantled. The western wall of the Moriah Platform was in no such danger.

 

Third, ben Joseph’s description indicates that the western wall he had in mind was uniquely still standing, surrounded by stones that were nothing but a pile of ruins. By constrast, the western wall of the Moriah Platform as well as all of the rest of the retaining wall on the north, south, and east sides were still intact. Clearly, ben Joseph’s western wall could not have been the same wall as the western retaining wall of the Moriah Platform.

 

So, what was this wall that Isaac ben Joseph says stood at the site of the Temple? According to historical reports this wall was a wall of the sacred Temple building itself.

 

Ahimaaz ben Paltiel, a rabbi of the eleventh century gives us some insight as to what this wall at the Temple site was.

 

Ahimaaz ben PaltielAhimaaz ben Paltiel was an Italian-Jewish liturgical poet and author of a family chronicle. He was born in Capua, Italy, in 1017 and died about 1060 in Oria. – wikipedia.org

 

Western WallThe Scroll of Ahimaaz, written in 1050 CE, distinctly describes the Western Wall as a place of prayer for the Jews. - wikipedia.org

 

Rabbi Ahimaaz wrote requesting support for the care of the Jewish Temple. In this request, Ahimaaz first mentions the ruined House of God’s Glory and then he speaks of a Western Wall of the Sanctuary. Like Isaac ben Joseph, rabbi Ahimaz is speaking of a wall of the Temple building itself, not the western retaining wall of the Moriah Platform. Note the phrases “the ruined House of His Glory” and “the Sanctuary at the Western Wall,” both of which indicate the wall was the remaining ruins of the Temple building itself.

 

At that time there was a Jew named Rabbi Ahima’as who went up to Jerusalem, the glorious city, three times with his vowed offerings. Each time he went, he took with him 100 pieces of gold, as he had vowed to the Rock of his salvation, to aid those who were engaged in Torah Study and for those who mourned the ruined House of His Glory– Ahima’as 1924: 65, translated by R. Harari, in Peters, Jerusalem, p.224, quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 234

 

oil for the inner altar of the Sanctuary at the Western Wall; and for the synagogues and communities, far and near: and for those who were mourning the loss of the Temple, those who grieved and mourned for Zion; and for the teachers and their students in the Yeshiva and for the scholars of Babylon in the Yeshiva of the Geonim. – Ahima’as 1924: 95-97, translated by R. Harari, in Peters, Jerusalem, p.224, quoted by Earnest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 234

 

These facts are also confirmed by Benjamin of Tudela, a Spanish Jew of the twelfth century who, like Rabbi Ahimaaz, reported on the place where Jews prayed.

 

Benjamin of TudelaBenjamin of Tudela was a medieval Navarrese adventurer, sometimes called "Rabbi", who traveled through Europe, Asia, and >Africa in the 12th century. His vivid descriptions of western Asia preceded those of >Marco Polo by a hundred years. With his broad education and vast knowledge of languages, Benjamin of Tudela is a major figure in medieval geography and Judaism. – wikipedia.org

 

In his accounts, Benjamin of Tudela recorded that the place were Jews prayed was the western wall of the Holy of Holies which stood at that time.

 

Western WallThe Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related….He refers to Benjamin of Tudela who, during the late Crusader Period in around 1167 CE, wrote that "In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and hither come all the Jews to pray before the Wall in the open court".[21] - wikipedia.org

 

"…you see the western wall, one of the walls which formed the Holy of Holies of the ancient Temple, it is called the Gate of Mercy and all Jews resort thither to say their prayers near the wall of the court yard." – Benjamin of Tudela, Sandra Benjamin, The World of Benjamin Tudela, p.171, emphasis and words in brackets are mine, quoted from Dr. Earnest L. Martin, http://www.askelm.com/..., Major "Keys" in Discovering the Lost Temples of Jerusalem

 

Benjamin of Tudela’s report fits with other accounts of Jewish thinking at the time of the twelvth century including those of Isaac ben Joseph and Rabbi Ahimaaz. All three men state that a western wall of the Temple building was standing at that time and that it was this wall, and not the western retaining wall of the Moriah Platform, that these earlier Jews venerated.

 

We must be clear. The wall that these medieval reports are discussing is not the western wall of the Herodian Temple building. That wall along with the rest of the Herodian (and pre-Herodian) structure was completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Earlier in our study we noted that this was the unanimous case presented by Jews, Christians, and Romans of the earliest period after the Temple’s destruction. (We will discuss who built this later, western wall of the Temple in our next section below.) Likewise, the wall referred to by Isaac ben Joseph, Rabbi Ahimaaz, and Benjamin of Tudela is not the western wall of the Moriah Platform. Instead, these historical documents show that Jewish traditions venerating the western wall of the Moriah Platform today, in fact, do not have historical continuity back to the times of the Temple. On the contrary, they are more recent innovations which originated sometime around the seventeenth century. The view that the western wall of the Moriah Platform was somehow related to the Herodian Temple is simply an assumption based on religious tradition.

 

The western wall is about five hundred meters. From all these five hundred meters, the Jews are praying in the last four hundred years in this area…. There is no sources. Nothing is written about it. We are praying it. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 1 hour, 4 minutes, and 13 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...

 

However that tradition began, it provides no evidence that the Temple actually stood somewhere on the Moriah Platform.

 

And it means that the Wailing Wall, what we see, the Wailing Wall, where Jews are praying here, has nothing to do with the Jewish Temple. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 47 minutes and 38 seconds,

 


Related Images



Aerial Photo Overlays



Overhead Schematics



Elevation
Cross-sections




Temple Model Photos



Photos from the
Mount of Olives




The Rock Under
the Dome Photo