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
The
Sizes of the Temple and Antonia
An
additional factor that indicates that the Temple was not on the Moriah
Platform concerns the respective sizes of these two structures as described in
the sources. According to Josephus, Herod doubled the size of the Temple and Antonia was to
its north.
1. 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. The expenses he laid out upon it were vastly large also, and the
riches about it were unspeakable. A sign of which you have in the great cloisters
that were erected about the temple, and
the citadel which was on its north side. The cloisters he built from the foundation,
but the citadel (32)
he repaired at a vast expense; nor was it other than a royal palace, which he
called Antonia, in honor of Antony.
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 21, Paragraphs 1-4
Likewise,
Josephus explains that even in the Herodian Period the southeastern corner of
the Temple remained from Solomon’s Temple
mount.
7. And
now it was that the temple was finished. So when the people saw that the workmen
were unemployed, who were above eighteen thousand and that they, receiving no
wages, were in want because they had earned their bread by their labors about
the temple; and while they were unwilling to keep by them the treasures that were
there deposited, out of fear of [their being carried away by] the Romans; and while they had a regard
to the making provision for the workmen; they had a mind to expend these treasures
upon them; for if any one of them did but labor for a single hour, he received
his pay immediately; so they persuaded him to rebuild the eastern cloisters. These cloisters belonged
to the outer court, and were situated in a deep valley, and had walls that reached
four hundred cubits [in length], and were built of square and very white stones,
the length of each of which stones was twenty cubits, and their height six cubits.
This was the work of king Solomon, (27)
who first of all built the entire temple. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20,
Chapter 9
The
hill was a rocky ascent, that declined by degrees towards the east parts of the
city, till it came to an elevated level. This hill it was which Solomon, who
was the first of our kings, by Divine revelation, encompassed
with a wall; it was of excellent workmanship upwards, and round the top of
it. He also built a wall below, beginning
at the bottom, which was encompassed by a deep valley; and at the south side he
laid rocks together, and bound them one to another with lead, and included some
of the inner parts, till it proceeded to a great height, and till both the
largeness of the square edifice and its altitude were immense, and till the vastness
of the stones in the front were plainly visible on the outside, yet so that the
inward parts were fastened together with iron, and preserved the joints immovable
for all future times. 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. – Josephus, Antiquities, Book
15, Chapter 10
As
Bahat remarks, scholars today agree with Josephus’ account that the eastern wall
of Solomon’s Temple mount remained a part of the
Herodian Temple
mount.
Now,
you know that all of us believe because of what we have in Josephus and in the
Gospels that the eastern wall of the Temple
Mount was common to the two Temple Mounts.
In other words, if this is the eastern wall, this is the Golden
Gate. The eastern wall is common
to the two. – Dr. Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, 36 minutes
and 50 seconds, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...
The
addition of Herod the Great, onto the earlier Temple Mount to which the laws
of purity pertain, the additions were from south, west, and north. Whereas the east was still original, ancient Temple Mount,
was retaining wall, was still there. This is clear to us and I’ll tell you why.
First of all, as you know from the Gospels, the name of the eastern portico is
the portico of Solomon. Why is it called the portico of Solomon? Because during
the second Temple
period, everything, especially for the later part, everything which was, which
seemed to be very old, was believed to be made still by King Solomon. – Dan
Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples,
35 minutes and 41 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html
And
they asked him to give them money to rebuild the eastern portico of the Temple because that one was already derelict
because of its old age. Which means, we see, that the eastern portico was really
the oldest one. Because otherwise, if it was built, had it been from the same
age as all the others, they wouldn’t have mentioned this one is old, or they’d
say it is as old as all the others, or they’d not mention at all its old age.
And therefore, we can learn that the eastern side, at least part of it, was the
ancient Temple Mount, belongs still to the ancient Temple Mount.
Dan Bahat, The Traditional Location of the Temples, 36 minutes and 52 seconds, http://www.templemount.org/...
The
Temple…three sides by Herodian additions,
from the south, west, and north, – Dan Bahat, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation
2, 40:07-40:30 minutes, Koinonia House, http://store.khouse.org/...
So,
Herod enlarged the Temple
mount. And this enlargement went northward. However, only if the Temple was abutted to the
Baris directly, would the fortress have to be destroyed and rebuilt in the north
as Bahat suggested earlier. If, on the other hand, the two structures were separated
from one another by some distance, then an expansion of the Temple would not require
Herod to destroy the Baris and build a new fortress to the north.
On
this point, Josephus reports that Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem involved his filling in a ditch that existed at
that time on the north side of the Temple.
Pompey
– Gnaeus Pompeius
Magnus, also known as Pompey, Pompey the Great or Pompey
the Triumvir[1]
(106 BC - 48 BC), was a military and political
leader of the late Roman Republic.
– wikipedia.org
Maccabees – The Maccabees were a Jewish rebel army who liberated Judea from the rule of the Seleucid empire.
They founded the Hasmonean
dynasty,
which ruled from 164 BC to 63 BC, reasserting the Jewish religion, expanding
the boundaries of Judea and reducing the influence
of Hellenism. – wikipedia.org
3.
But Pompey himself filled up the ditch
that was oil the north side of the temple, and the entire valley also, the
army itself being obliged to carry the materials for that purpose. And
indeed it was a hard thing to fill up that valley, by reason of its immense depth,
especially as the Jews used all the means possible to repel them from their
superior situation; nor had the Romans succeeded in their endeavors, had not Pompey
taken notice of the seventh days, on which the Jews abstain from all sorts of
work on a religious account, and raised his bank, but restrained his soldiers
from fighting on those days; for the Jews only acted defensively on sabbath days.
But as soon as Pompey had filled up the valley,
he erected high towers upon the bank, and brought those engines which they had
fetched from Tyre near to the wall, and tried to batter it down; and the slingers
of stones beat off those that stood above them, and drove them away; but the towers
on this side of the city made very great resistance, and were indeed extraordinary
both for largeness and magnificence. - Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter
7, Paragraph 3
The
existence of this ditch to the Temple’s north indicates
that the Hasmonean Baris did not directly abut the Temple itself. As such, there
is no need to speculate against the evidence that Herod demolished the Baris and
built Antonia on a different site to its north. Additionally, this information
also shows that there was some distance between the hill of the Temple and the peak to its
north. No such valley exists between the Dome of the Rock site and the rock under
the Umariyah School.
The Moriah platform virtually abuts the Umariyah
School, leaving no room for
a ditch, even one that is filled in. This geographical fact further undermines
the identification of these sites as those of the Temple and Antonia, respectively.
Likewise,
Josephus informs us that the Temple was separated from the Antonia (Herod’s
renovation of the Baris). As we know, Josephus recorded that Antonia was built
on the same site as the Baris.
According
to Josephus’ description, each of the four walls of the Temple
had a cloister (colonnade) built on its top.
8.
…Now, then, all such as ever saw the construction
of our temple, of what nature it was, know well enough how the purity of it was
never to be profaned; for it had four several courts (11)
encompassed with cloisters round about, every one of which had by our law
a peculiar degree of separation from the rest. – Josephus, Contra Apion, Book
1
And when they
had built walls on three sides of the temple round about, from the bottom of the
hill, and had performed a work that was greater than could be hoped for, (in which
work long ages were spent by them, as well as all their sacred treasures were
exhausted, which were still replenished by those tributes which were sent to God
from the whole habitable earth,) they then encompassed their upper courts with
cloisters, as well as they [afterward] did the lowest [court of the] temple. –
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 1
Elsewhere
Josephus explains that the Temple was joined to Antonia Fortress. The connection
occurred at the northwestern corner of the Temple
by two passages which connected to the western and northern cloisters of the Temple.
8.
Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was
situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on
the west, and that on the north;…And as the entire structure resembled that
of a tower, it contained also four other distinct towers at its four corners;
whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the
southeast corner was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might
be viewed; but on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple,
it had passages down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay
in this tower a Roman legion) went
several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals,
in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations;
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8
A
cloister is a covered passageway.
Cloister
– 1 a : a monastic establishment b : an area within a monastery or convent
to which the religious are normally restricted c : monastic life d : a place or
state of seclusion 2 : a covered passage
on the side of a court usually having one side walled and the other an open arcade
or colonnade – Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
Cloister
– quadrilateral enclosure surrounded by covered
walkways, and usually attached to a monastic or cathedral church and sometimes
to a college. The term used in a narrow sense also applies to the walkways or
alleys themselves (the central area being the cloister garth), in a general sense
to the houses of religious orders, and in a generic sense to places of retreat
for religious purposes. – Encyclopedia Britannica Deluxe Edition 2004
Josephus
explains that each of the sides of the Herodian Temple platform was one furlong (stade)
in length.
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
But the length
of the Temple’s
colonnades including the Antonia totaled six furlongs.
2.
Now for the works that were above these
foundations, these were not unworthy of such foundations; for all the cloisters
were double, and the pillars to them belonging were twenty-five cubits in height,
and supported the cloisters. These pillars were of one entire stone each of them,
and that stone was white marble; and the roofs were adorned with cedar, curiously
graven. The natural magnificence, and excellent polish, and the harmony of the
joints in these cloisters, afforded a prospect that was very remarkable; nor was
it on the outside adorned with any work of the painter or engraver. The cloisters
[of the outmost court] were in breadth thirty cubits, while
the entire compass of it was by measure six furlongs, including the tower of Antonia;
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2
Now
of these six furlongs, four were the length of the sides of the Temple.
This leaves a remaining two furlongs which pertain somehow to Antonia Fortress.
It is possible that Josephus means to indicate that the total length of all four
sides of the Fortress of Antonia was only two furlongs. This would mean that even
Herod’s enlargement of the Baris (called Antonia) was a small structure. But if
it was so small in size after the enlargement, the earlier Baris would have had
to be very small. In fact, it would seem to be too small to accommodate the Hasmonean
palace and stronghold.
Because
of these facts, we must consider the alternative possibility. The alternative
possibility is that the above quote from Josephus is not describing the size of
Antonia itself. Instead, Josephus is simply indicating the length of the passages
that connected Antonia to the cloisters of the Temple.
This conclusion fits well with the fact that the Baris must have been large enough
to operate as the Hasmonean palace and stronghold of Jerusalem. And it fits well with other information
provided by Josephus regarding the Temple’s connection to Antonia.
Josephus
describes how the Jews sought to prevent the Romans from entering the Temple
by severing access to the Temple
from Antonia. This was accomplished by setting fire to the northwest cloister
which joined to the tower
of Antonia and broke off
twenty cubits of that cloister. Josephus compares this action to cutting off the
limbs of a body.
9.
In the mean time, the Jews were so distressed
by the fights they had been in, as the war advanced higher and higher, and creeping
up to the holy house itself, that they, as it were, cut off those limbs of their
body which were infected, in order to prevent the distemper's spreading further;
for they set the north-west cloister, which was joined to the tower of Antonia,
on fire, and after that brake off about twenty cubits of that cloister, and
thereby made a beginning in burning the sanctuary; two days after which, or on
the twenty-fourth day of the forenamed month, [Panemus or Tamuz,] the Romans set fire to the cloister that joined
to the other, when the fire went fifteen cubits farther. The Jews, in like manner, cut off its roof;
nor did they entirely leave off what they were about till the tower of Antonia
was parted from the temple, – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter
2, Paragraph 9
The
idea that the Jews merely burned the northwest corner of the Temple
itself does not fit with Josephus’ description of this action as “cutting of the
arms” from the body. Rather, Josephus’ metaphor indicates extensions from the
body itself, not parts within the body. In this case, the body that the Jews sought
to save was the Temple
itself. So, they cut off the arms or passageways that attached it to Antonia.
With the passageways from Antonia to the Temple
cut off, the Romans would not be able enter into the Temple from Antonia. This is exactly what the
Jews did.
This conclusion
is also necessitated by the fact that the Jews are said to “brake off” a section
of a single cloister. We must keep in mind that a cloister is a covered passageway.
If the cloister that was broken off was the passageway from the Temple
platform to Antonia, then this Jewish tactic makes complete sense. “Braking off”
a section of the passageway that joined Antonia to the Temple
would create an impasse for Roman troops seeking to enter the Temple from Antonia. On the other hand, if the
Temple was merely abutting Antonia, “braking off”
a section of one of the Temple’s cloisters would
not prevent the Romans from entering the Temple
at all.
Additionally,
this was not the first time the Jews had used this tactic to prevent Roman soldiers
from entering into the Temple. Earlier in his writing, Josephus describes
another instance in which the Jews cut off the cloisters from joining to the tower
of Antonia.
5.
When Agrippa had spoken thus, both he and his sister wept, and by their tears
repressed a great deal of the violence of the people; but still they cried out,
that they would not fight against the Romans, but against Florus, on account of
what they had suffered by his means. To which Agrippa replied, that what they
had already done was like such as make war against the Romans; "for you have
not paid the tribute which is due to Caesar (25)
and you have cut off the cloisters [of
the temple] from joining to the tower Antonia. You will therefore prevent
any occasion of revolt if you will but join these together again, and if you will
but pay your tribute; for the citadel does not now belong to Florus, nor are you
to pay the tribute money to Florus." – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2,
Chapter 16, Paragraph 5
We
should note that, with the exception quoted immediately above, all of the descriptions
of the Jewish effort to keep the Romans out of the Temple
come from chapter six of Wars of the Jews. Josephus concludes his description
of these events with the odd statement that the Jews demolished the tower of Antonia.
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
Now,
the Jewish forces most certainly did not by any means demolish the tower
of Antonia. Instead, Titus
continued to mount his attack from this Herodian fortress until he succeeded in
entering the Temple
and putting down the Jewish revolt. The fact that Antonia was not demolished by
the Jews helps us understand Josephus’ earlier description of the Temple and its connection
to Antonia.
Earlier,
Josephus stated that the four cloisters atop the walls of the Temple
were only one furlong each in length and that the total length around the walls
of the Temple totaled four furlongs. However, after
explaining that Antonia was connected to the Temple,
Josephus then said that the entire length of the cloisters of the Temple including the Antonia
was six furlongs. In neither passage is Josephus referring to the totality of
Antonia. This is made clear by the second passage. In the second passage, Josephus
is clearly not saying that the Jews destroyed Antonia. Rather, he is saying that
the Jews demolished the structures connecting Antonia to the Temple. Similarly then, in
the first passage, Josephus is not saying the total perimeter of Antonia and the
Temple combined
was equal to six furlongs. Rather, Josephus was saying that the total length of
the Temple’s cloisters
and the structure connecting it to Antonia was six furlongs.
This
conclusion is corroborated by Josephus’ descriptions of the size of Antonia. According
to Josephus, Antonia had the “largeness and form of a palace” inside. It had broad
spaces for military camps. It seemed as though it was “several cities.” This creates
the picture of a very large fortress.
8.
Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was
situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on
the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in
height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein
he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. In the first place, the rock itself was covered
over with smooth pieces of stone, from its foundation, both for ornament,
and that any one who would either try to get up or to go down it might not be
able to hold his feet upon it. Next to this, and before you come to the edifice
of the tower itself, there was a wall three cubits high; but within that wall all the space of the
tower of Antonia itself was built upon, to the height
of forty cubits. The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace,
it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts,
and places for bathing, and broad spaces
for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might
seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence it seemed a
palace. And as the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also
four other distinct towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty
cubits high; whereas that which lay upon the southeast corner was seventy cubits
high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; – Josephus, Wars of the
Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8
Similarly,
Josephus’ history of the revolts and riots of the Jewish people over the course
of several centuries includes his account of the number of troops that the Romans
felt were necessary in order to quell the uproars that had a tendency to erupt
at the Temple during religious festivals. To meet this
need Josephus says a Roman legion was permanently stationed in Antonia.
…but
on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages
down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower a Roman legion)
went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the Jewish festivals,
in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt to make any innovations;
for the temple was a fortress that guarded the city, as was the tower of Antonia
a guard to the temple; and in that tower were the guards of those three (14).
– Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8
The
size of a Roman legion during this period of history included thousands of soldiers
with an additionally number of auxiliary troops and support staff. Certainly,
such a number seems warranted given the proven tendency towards revolt of the
thousands of Jewish citizens that gathered at the Temple
each festival period.
Roman
Legion - Early Empire (30
BC-284 AD) – With each legion having 5,120 legionaries usually
supported by an equal number of auxiliary troops, the total force available to a legion commander during
the Pax Romana
probably ranged from 153,600 downwards, with the more prestigious legions and
those stationed on hostile borders or in restive provinces tending to have more
auxiliaries. Some legions may have even
been reinforced at times with units making the associated force near 15,000–16,000
or about the size of a modern division. – wikipedia.org
The
Book of Acts reports that the captain of the guard at Antonia had enough men available
on hand that he could afford to send nearly 500 of them to escort Paul to Caesarea
on the spur of the moment during a period of the Jewish festival (Acts 20:16).
The word translated as “castle” in verse 24 of Acts 22 is the Greek word “parembole”
(Strong’s number 3925). In this passage, it refers to the Roman fortress of Antonia
itself.
3925
parembole
from
a compound of 3844 and 1685; ; n f
AV-castle
6, camp 3, army 1; 10
1) an encampment
1a)
the camp of Israel
in the desert
1a1)
used for the city of Jerusalem, inasmuch as that was to the Israelites what formerly
the encampment had been in the desert
1a2)
of the sacred congregation or assembly of Israel, as it had been gathered formerly
in camps in the wilderness
1b)
the barracks of the Roman soldiers, which
at Jerusalem were in the castle of Antonia
2) an army in a line of battle
Acts 22:24 The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and
bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they
cried so against him. 25 And as they bound
him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful
for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? 26 When the centurion heard that, he went
and told the chief captain (5506), saying, Take heed what thou doest: for
this man is a Roman. 27 Then the chief captain (5506) came, and said unto him,
Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. 28 And the chief captain answered, With
a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.
23:22 So the chief captain then
let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou
hast shewed these things to me. 23 And he called unto him two centurions,
saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers
to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred,
at the third hour of the night; 24 And provide them beasts, that they may
set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor.
Acts
22 and 23 refers to two Roman officers involved in these events, the centurion
and his superior, the chief captain. Roman centurions commanded 80 men.
Centurion – Most centurions commanded a century (centuria) of 80 men,
but senior centurions commanded cohorts, or took senior staff roles in their
legion. – wikipedia.org
1543
hekatontarches
from
1540 and 757; ; n m
AV-centurion
21; 21
1)
an officer in the Roman army
The
word for “chief captain” here is the Greek word “chiliarchos” (Strong’s number
5506). It comes from the Greek words “chilioi” (Strong’s number 5507) meaning
1,000 and “archos” (Strong’s number 757) meaning “chief” or “ruler.” This man
was a commander of at least 1,000 Roman troops.
5506
chiliarchos
from 5507 and 757; ; n m
AV-chief
captain 19, captain 2, high captain 1; 22
1) a chiliarch, the commander of
a thousand soldiers
2) the commander of a Roman cohort (a military tribunal)
3)
any military commander
5507
chilioi
plural
of uncertain affinity; TDNT-9:466,1316; adj
AV-thousand
11; 11
1)
a thousand
757
archo
a
primary word; TDNT-1:478,81; v
AV-rule
over 1, reign over 1; 2
1) to be chief, to lead,
to rule
Acts
22 and 23 confirms Josephus’ account that a Roman legion was stationed in Antonia
during the Herodian Period. From these facts we must conclude the number of persons
that must have occupied Antonia at any given time would have been substantial.
In order to accommodate this population of Roman troops, Antonia must have been
quite large. However, what is most helpful is Josephus description of Antonia’s
size in relation to the Temple.
In this respect, Josephus states that, in fact, Antonia was large enough to block
the view of the Temple
from the north.
There
was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod's palace;
but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already
told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these
three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered
the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to
have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to
myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere. – Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8
The
important thing to note is that Josephus explains that the view of the Temple
was only blocked from the North. Now there were certainly buildings on the western
side of the Temple.
And the western hill was certainly of a high elevation. For instance, the Herodian Palace
was to the Temple’s
west and was high enough to allow King Agrippa to have a view down into the court
of the priests.
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
Surely
a building of the size and height of the Herodian Palace
would have been a partial impediment to viewing the Temple as one approached it from the west. And
yet Josephus does not say that the view of the Temple was blocked from the west. If Josephus
was referring to a partial obstruction then he would have had to report other
visual impediments from the west as well. He does not. Instead, Josephus specifically
states that the view of the Temple
was uniquely blocked only from the north. This blockage of sight was caused by
the immense structure of Antonia. As such, Josephus must be taken to indicate
that the fortress was sufficiently large to completely block the site of the Temple from the north rather
than just partially impede its being sighted from certain angles.
Josephus’
description that Antonia blocked the view of the Temple from the north indicates
that the two furlongs he ascribes to Antonia must not be a reference to its total
perimeter. Josephus has already stated that each side of the Temple itself was equal to
a furlong (or stade). In order for Antonia to block the view of the Temple from the north it
would have to have been a least one furlong in its east-west dimension. However,
Josephus’ description here only assigns two furlongs to Antonia. But we also know
that Antonia included open spaces and camps within it. In order to accommodate
these open interior spaces and block the Temple, Antonia’s total perimeter must have
been larger than the two furlongs Josephus mentions here. This means that the
two furlongs Josephus includes beyond the Temple’s
own measurements refer to something besides Antonia’s total size. The most reasonable
conclusion is that Josephus is referring to the passages that connected Antonia
to the Temple.
This conclusion is warranted by additional remarks made by Josephus.
Since
the Temple’s cloisters were themselves each one
furlong, the remaining two furlongs must represent the length of the structure
that connected Antonia to the Temple. Since Josephus states that Antonia joined
two cloisters of the Temple (the northern and western),
we can assume that Antonia was connected to the Temple
by two passages, one joining the western cloister of the Temple and one joining the northern cloister.
These connecting structures, which Josephus compares to “arms” on a body, would
each have been one furlong in length so that the total length of the cloisters
of the Temple
and the “arms” was six furlongs. When the Jews demolished these two “arms” the
Temple was no longer a square
platform with arms extending northward to Antonia. Instead, it was a simply a
square.
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
We
can see that Josephus’ accounts clearly indicate that the Temple
was separated from Antonia by a distance equal to one furlong. This space was
occupied by two “arms” which connected the Temple to Antonia itself. By this we know that
the Temple was
not directly abutting Antonia. Instead, it was one furlong to the south of Antonia.
Antonia
Fortress – Josephus placed the Antonia at the Northwest
corner of the colonnades surrounding the Temple. Modern
depictions often show the Antonia as being located along the North side of the
temple enclosure. However, Josephus' description of the siege of Jerusalem suggests that it
was separated from the temple enclosure itself and probably connected by two colonnades
with a narrow space between them. Josephus' measurements suggest about a 600 foot
separation between the two complexes. – wikipedia.org
Though
some of the language used by Josephus may be interpreted as though the Antonia
immediately adjoined, or even abutted upon, the Temple cloisters [colonnades],
this is not the only possible meaning; and in his description of the struggles
between the Romans and the Jews, after Titus had taken the Castle [Antonia], Josephus
implies that some little space intervened between the latter and the peribolos
[colonnades] of the sanctuary. – George Adam Smith, Jerusalem, vol. II, p.496. Professor
Smith is referring to the narrative of Josephus in War VI.1, 7-8 and VI.
2,6.…, quoted from Ernest L. Martin, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot, p. 417
Likewise,
we have seen that Antonia was built on the site of the Baris and that Antonia
was an enlargement of the Baris. However, we do not know the exact proximity of
the Hasmonean Baris to the Temple. But we do know that, Josephus relates
the site of the Temple
to the hill of Zion. He does not identify the hill of the Temple as its own distinct hill of Jerusalem.
Nor does he describe the hill of the Temple
in relation to the northern peak where the Hasmonean and Herodian fortresses were
built. This also indicates that the Temple
was not directly abutting the Baris or Antonia.
1.
THE city of Jerusalem was fortified
with three walls, on such parts as were not encompassed with unpassable valleys;
for in such places it had but one wall. The city was built upon two hills, which are
opposite to one another, and have a valley to divide them asunder; at which
valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end. Of these hills, that which contains the upper
city is much higher,….But the other
hill, which was called "Acra," and sustains the lower city, is of the
shape of a moon when she is horned; over against this there was a third hill,
but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley.
However, in those times when the Asamoneans reigned, they filled up that valley
with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the temple. They then took off
part of the height of Acra, and reduced it to be of less elevation than it was
before, that the temple might be superior to it. Now the Valley of the Cheesemongers,
as it was called, and was that which we told you before distinguished the hill
of the upper city from that of the lower, extended as far as Siloam; for that
is the name of a fountain which hath sweet water in it, and this in great plenty
also. But on the outsides, these hills
are surrounded by deep valleys, and by reason of the precipices to them belonging
on both sides they are every where unpassable. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews,
Book 5, Chapter 4 – THE DESCRIPTION OF JERUSALEM., Paragraph 1
It
should also be mentioned that the Hasmoneans built the Baris as a substitute for
the Akra fortress on Zion hill. The reason for destroying the Akra
fortress was its close proximity and elevated vantage point, making Jewish activity
in the Temple
susceptible to any military force that captured the fortress. Given this reason,
it is extremely unlikely that the Hasmoneans would have built the replacement
fortress on an elevated location immediately abutting the Temple on the north. Doing
so would have recreated the very problem they were attempting to remove.
This
information regarding Antonia’s size and distance from the Temple
is very informative for locating the site of the Temple.
First, we know that the Baris and Antonia occupied the same site and that Herod
simply enlarged the earlier Hasmonean fortress. Second, we know that the Baris
was built on a site that today is within the Moriah Platform. Third, we know that
the Moriah Platform is a Herodian structure. These facts leave little doubt that
the Moriah Platform is the site of the Antonia. This means that the Temple was not located on
the Moriah Platform, but was south of the platform. The Temple
would then have been located near the fortress of Zion hill, the Gihon Spring, and the Ophel in
Davidic Jerusalem. This is exactly what the historical and biblical sources have
repeatedly indicated. And it would fit with Tuvia Sagiv’s identification of the
rock beneath the Dome of the Rock with the rock of Antonia Fortress.
That
the Dome of the Rock, the rock of the Dome
of the Rock, this is the rock of the Antonia. It means all the problems we have
are solved immediately. The ditch is in the right place. And
the rock is the rock of the Antonia. And the Temple
is in the south. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia
House, 57 minutes and 36 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...
The
Height of the Rock of Antonia
Sagiv’s
identification of the rocky peak beneath the Dome of the Rock as the rock of Antonia
fortress invites further investigation. Josephus reports that this prominent rock
feature of Antonia was 50 cubits (75 feet, approximately 23 meters) high in elevation.
8.
Now as to the tower of Antonia, it
was situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that
on the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits
in height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod, wherein
he demonstrated his natural magnanimity. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8
(For
reference templemount.org provides a topographic map of Jerusalem
as well as a report of the various altitudes of the Moriah ridge.)
The
traditional view is that Antonia was a small structure directly adjoined to the
western portion of the Moriah Platform. The traditional site of the Antonia is
the space that is occupied today by the Umariyah School.
Another
question, here is the area as you see. And this is the area as you have heard from
Dan Bahat of the Antonia fortress. Look at the left. Here there is a school. It’s called Elah Moriah. And according to most of the scholars this
is the place of the Antonia. – Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 13 minutes and 49
seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html
Umariyah Elementary School – The Umariya Elementary School
is a prestigious madrassa in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem's
Old City. It is located at the start of the
Via Dolorosa,
and is adjacent to the Convent of the Sisters of Zion.
Underneath the buildings of the school
are a corner of the remains of the Antonia Fortress.
– wikipedia.org
As
Sagiv explains, beneath this school is rocky summit. However, the elevation of
this rock does not fit with Josephus’ description.
But
Josephus Flavius is talking about the height. And he said that the Antonia fortress
was on a rock that was about 25 meters, 75 feet. In this area there is no such
rock. There is nothing which is about 75 feet. So
where is the rock on which Antonia stood? You see the moment you look at it in
a three dimensional way there are some problems. It doesn’t work. Where is this
rock? Indeed, there is here a little rock, but it’s only five meters high. Nowadays
we have no problem to destroy a mountain. But in those days, till the last century
it was very difficult to change a location of a mountain, of a rock. And if there
was something like this and we will here about it later somebody’d have to write
about it. And we have nothing about somebody
who destroyed the Antonia rock. So where is the rock on which the Antonia stood?
– Tuvia Sagiv, The Southern Location of the Temples, 15 minutes and 10
seconds, http://www.templemount.org/lectures.html
As
our cross-section of the Moriah ridge confirms, the rock beneath the Umariyah
School is at an elevation
of 750 meters. For comparison the height of the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock
is 741 meters. This is a difference in elevation of only 9 meters (36 feet). (See
elevation_cross-section diagram.)
The
topographic map shows that Mount Moriah is not a single peak, but an elongated
ridge which commences to rise at its Southern end at the junction of the Kidron
and Hinnom Valleys, at the original City of David, (elevation approximately 600
meters). The ridge then climbs in elevation to a maximum of 777 meters just Northeast
of the present Damascus Gate of the Old City. The Temple
Mount, prominent in most photos of Jerusalem occupies an area
of about 45 acres. However the elevation
of the bedrock outcropping on the Temple
Mount within the Dome of
the Rock Moslem shrine is only 741 meters. – http://www.templemount.org/moriah2.html
Temple Mount – The Temple
Mount forms the northern
portion of a very narrow spur of hill that slopes sharply from north to south.
Rising above the Kidron Valley to the east and Tyropoeon Valley
to the west,[2]
its peak reaches a height of 740 m
(2,428 ft) above sea level. – wikipedia.org
The
rock beneath the Umariyah School
isn’t high enough to be the location of Antonia Fortress. Instead, we must look
for the rock of the Antonia Fortress further south than the Umariyah School,
which means that it would have been the Moriah Platform. In his presentations,
Tuvia Sagiv identifies the rock beneath the Dome of the Rock as the peak on which
Antonia was built.
That
the Dome of the Rock, the rock of the Dome of the Rock, this is the rock of the
Antonia. It means all the problems we have are solved immediately. – Tuvia
Sugiv, 1995, The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 57 minutes and
36 seconds, http://store.khouse.org/...
So,
what comes out is that the rock in the
Dome of the Rock is the Antonia. You see what happens we put the Temple in the south and the
Dome, and the rock in the Dome of the Rock is the ditch. So, it’s exactly what is described by Josephus
Flavius....This is all again, and here is the place of the Antonia, the Dome of
the Rock, the rock where the Dome of the Rock exists. – Tuvia Sugiv, 1995,
The Coming Temple, Presentation 2, Koinonia House, 30 minutes and 40 seconds,
http://store.khouse.org/...
Incidentally,
the difference in height between the rock under the Dome of the Rock and the area
near the Ophel mound in the northern section of Davidic Jerusalem is about 75-78
feet (23-24 meters). This fits Josephus’ descriptions very well and would locate
the Temple somewhere near the Ophel mound, just
as Josephus and the biblical texts also indicate.
So,
we have two additional and very solid reasons to identify the Moriah Platform
as Herod’s Antonia. First, Antonia was a renamed renovation of the Hasmonean fortress
called the Baris. As we have already seen, the remains of the Baris have been
found beneath the Moriah Platform. Second, the height of the rock of Antonia best
fits with the height of the rocky outcropping beneath the Dome of the Rock and
not with the rock at the Umariyah School.
The identification of the Moriah Platform with Antonia Fortress is the best fit
with the historical and geographical data. These facts provide further corroboration
for the conclusion that the Temple
was located to the south of the Moriah Platform.
There
is at least one additional reason that Antonia Fortress cannot be identified with
the peak beneath the Umariya School
as the Moriah Platform Views require. Earlier we saw Josephus’ report that the
Antonia Fortress was so large that it blocked the view of the Temple from the north.
There
was also a peculiar fortress belonging to the upper city, which was Herod's palace;
but for the hill Bezetha, it was divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already
told you; and as that hill on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these
three, so did it adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered
the sight of the temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to
have spoken about the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to
myself to make a more accurate description of it elsewhere. – Josephus, Wars of
the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5, Paragraph 8
This
description requires that Antonia was larger than the Temple at least in its east-west
dimension. However, views which identify the Moriah Platform as Herod’s Temple
identify Antonia as a small area directly adjoined to the northwestern corner
of its wall. Photographs from the Shrine of the Museum’s model of Herodian Jerusalem
depict this concept of Antonia. (See Conventional Antonia 1 and Conventional Antonia 2.)
The
Moriah Platform Views reduce the Antonia to about half the length of the northern
wall of the Moriah Platform. If the Antonia was this size how would it have blocked
the view of the Temple from the north that was in any way? How
would it have been able to station a Roman legion? Clearly, the Antonia envisioned
in the Moriah Platform Views could not have done either.
These
facts indicate that the Antonia could not have been at the site of the Umariyah
School today. This traditional
conception does not fit historical description of the height of the Antonia hill
or the size of the Antonia fortress. For these reasons, the site of Antonia must
be sought on a peak further south on the Moriah ridge than the Umariyah School. This requires that Antonia is the
Moriah Platform. Consequentially, this would in turn push the location of the
Temple south of the Moriah
Platform.
Summary
of Issues Regarding the Temple
and Antonia
Additional
proof that the Temple was located south of the
Moriah Platform are based the elevations of the hill of the Temple.
The
exact height of the hill of the Temple and the
Herodian and Hasmonean
Temple platforms cannot be
determined with precision. But we can be certain that they were considerably lower
than the level of the Moriah Platform that we see today. We know that Josephus
indicates that the Temple
was lower than the elevation of Antonia.
8.
Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was
situated at the corner of two cloisters of the court of the temple; of that on
the west, and that on the north; it was erected upon a rock of fifty cubits in
height, and was on a great precipice; it was the work of king Herod,…And as
the entire structure resembled that of a tower, it contained also four other distinct
towers at its four corners; whereof the others were but fifty cubits high; whereas
that which lay upon the southeast corner
was seventy cubits high, that from thence the whole temple might be viewed; but
on the corner where it joined to the two cloisters of the temple, it had passages
down to them both, through which the guard (for there always lay in this tower
a Roman legion) went several ways among the cloisters, with their arms, on the
Jewish festivals, in order to watch the people, that they might not there attempt
to make any innovations; for the temple was a fortress that guarded
the city, as was the tower of Antonia a guard to the temple; and in that tower
were the guards of those three (14).
There was also a peculiar fortress belonging
to the upper city, which was Herod's palace; but for the hill Bezetha, it was
divided from the tower Antonia, as we have already told you; and as that hill
on which the tower of Antonia stood was the highest of these three, so did it
adjoin to the new city, and was the only place that hindered the sight of the
temple on the north. And this shall suffice at present to have spoken about
the city and the walls about it, because I have proposed to myself to make a more
accurate description of it elsewhere. – Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter
5, Paragraph 8
…he gave order that the whole army should
take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have
said already, which overlooked the temple; (10)
– Josephus, Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 5
Likewise,
as we have seen, Josephus indicates that the Temple
was connected to Antonia Fortress by a set of cloisters that were each the same
length as the sides of the Temple.
These cloisters were measured as one furlong each. So, how long is a furlong?
First
we should note that the furlong is an English measurement. English versions of
Josephus use furlong as a translation of the Roman stadia (or stade).
In
ancient times there were several lengths for the stadia. Under their article “stadia (length),” wikipedia.org
provides the following table showing the varying lengths of one stade as used
in different cultures. These measurements range from 515 feet (157 meters) to
685 feet (209 meters).
Stade name
Length (approximate)
Itinerary 157 m
Olympic
176 m
Attic/Italic 185 m
Babylonian-Persian
196 m
Phoenician-Egyptian 209 m
Heroditus,
the Greek historian of the fifth century BC, used a stade of 600 feet.
Stadia – The stadia, stadium, stade or stadion is
an ancient unit of length. According to Herodotus, one stade is equal to 600 feet.
However, there were several different lengths of “feet”, depending on the country of origin. –
wikipedia.org
More
recently, the Roman stadia was considered to be 625 (German) feet (190 meters).
Furlong – The furlong was historically viewed as
equivalent to the Roman stade (stadium)…In
the Roman system, there were 625 feet to the stade – wikipedia.org
However,
today the English furlong (supposed to be equivalent to the Roman stade) is designated
as the equivalent of 660 standard English feet.
Furlong
– old English unit of length, based on the length of an average plowed furrow
(hence “furrow-long,” or furlong) in the English open- or common-field system.
Each furrow ran the length of the 40 × 4-rod acre, or 660 modern feet. The standardization of such linear units as the
yard, foot, and inch—begun in Edward I's statute of 1303—recognized the traditional
sizes of rods, furlongs, and acres as fixed and therefore simply redefined them
in terms of the newly standardized units. Thus, the furlong, often measured as 625 northern (German) feet, became
660 standard English feet, and the mile, always 8 furlongs, became 5,280 feet.
Today, the furlong is used almost exclusively in horse racing. – Encyclopedia
Britannica Deluxe Edition 2004
The
length of English measurement has been standardized in modern times.
Foot (length) – A foot (plural: feet or foot;[1]
symbol or abbreviation: ft or, sometimes, ′ – the prime symbolunit of length, in a number of different systems, including
English units,
Imperial units,
and United States customary units. Its size can
vary from system to system, but in each is around a quarter to a third of a meter.
The most commonly used foot today is the international foot. There are three
feet in a yard
and 12 inches
in a foot. – wikipedia.org
These
variations in size for the foot, the furlong, and the stade provide a range of
distance between 515 feet and 685 feet. We will use a conservative estimate of
around 600 feet (182 meters), which fits that used by Herodotus. This means that
the Temple was
located some 600 feet (182 meters) south of Antonia fortress.
As
we have said, Dan Bahat (former chief archeologist of Jerusalem) has reported that
archeological excavation under the Moriah Platform has discovered Jewish fortifications
from the time of the Hasmoneans. These remains have been identified as the Baris.
As such, the Herodian platform that is today known as the Moriah Platform must
be identified as the the Herodian expansion of the Baris, which was called Antonia.
According to Josephus’ account then the Temple must be located 600
feet (182 meters) south of the southern wall of this Herodian structure.
Placing
the Temple 600
feet south of the Moriah Platform’s southern wall points to a site which is at
a very low elevation today. Josephus is clear that the Herodian Temple
was lower than the Antonia. However, while he states that the Hasmoneans demolished
the hill of Zion, his account indicates that the hill of the Temple was preserved. And
yet today there is no hill in the area 600 feet south of the Moriah Platform.
The absence of such a hill does make it difficult to find the exact location of
the Temple, but
it is not historically unexpected. Despite the Hasmonean preservation of Temple hill, the city of Jerusalem suffered two devastating sieges by
the Romans (in 70 AD and 132 AD). As we will see later, the attention that the
Romans paid to the destruction of the Temple
in 70 AD resulted in its being dug up to the foundations. Such destruction would
certainly have involved the removal of a great deal of earth and soil. This may
explain why today we do not see any remains of an elevated area on the southern
portion of the Moriah ridge.
In
conclusion, we have learned a great deal about the location of the Temple
in relation to the location of Antonia. We have documented several difficulties
with the Moriah Platform Views which place the Temple on the Moriah Platform.
The first problem for these views is that the site of the
Hasmonean Baris has been discovered beneath the Moriah Platform. The historical
record states that Antonia was merely a Herodian renovation and expansion of the
earlier Hasmonean stronghold. To identify the Baris within the area of the Moriah
Platform requires that the platform itself be identified as the Herodian enlargement
of the Baris. Therefore, the Moriah Platform is Antonia. And the Temple would was to its south.
Second, the Antonia
was built around a rock that was approximately 75feet (50 cubits, 23 meters) high.
The only rocky peak that meets this description is beneath the site of the Dome
of the Rock on the Moriah Platform. This too requires that the Moriah Platform
be identified with the Herodian fortress called Antonia. Therefore, the Temple must have been be south of the platform.
Third,
Antonia Fortress was a large structure capable of accommodating a Roman legion.
It contained open spaces on its interior suitable for military exercises. The
fortress and the hill on which it sat were so big that it blocked viewing the
Temple from the
north of the city. The Herodian
Temple mount itself was at
least 600 feet square. This means that, in order to block the view of the Temple from the north, Antonia’s
east-west dimensions would have been at least 600 feet (1 furlong, 1 stade, 182
meters). Such dimensions do not fit with small conceptions of Antonia necessitated
by views which place the Temple on the Moriah Platform.
Fourth,
the Temple was
separated from Antonia Fortress by a space of approximately 600 feet (1 furlong,
1 state, 182 meters). This too indicates a more southern location of the Temple
than is traditionally assumed. Likewise, this separation cannot be accommodated
by the typical location and conceptions of the Antonia Fortress that are necessitated
by placing the Temple
on the Moriah Platform.
In
accordance with the historical data presented above, the Moriah Platform should
be identified as Antonia Fortress and the Temple site must be to the
south of this structure.