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


 

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 SchoolThe 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 MountThe 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.

 


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