One Man's View of Solomon's Temple
19.2.2024: If the American government believed what it preached, instead of backing Israel, they would have had troops on the ground by now, protecting Gazan civilians. Their 'freedom' and 'human rights' rhetoric is a hollow lie, and if it wasn't obvious to the world before, it must be now. It is the principal backer of a remorseless and merciless artificial State, that is hell-bent on the total subjigation - and yes irradication - of a whole population, whilst both 'Western Christian' and 'Arab Muslim' governments, look on apparently impotent. I am against war, what sane person isn't? - but when faced by a unrestrained, one-sided, evil entity like Israel, only resisting force of arms offers protection and victory. It is a basic human right to protect oneself against aggression and threat, both individually and corporately. The question is where will it come from if not from Palestinians themselves? How will it be achieved unless other great powers in the region back them. If they do, how will it not escalate into another devastating world conflict, in which no nation will be spared? Israel has torn up the moral rule book. It has taken provocation to record extremes. It has demonstrated total disregard for human life and property. It has encouraged, justified and exhonerated the most inhuman and bestial behaviour by its troops and citizens. Its flagrant lies have been hung out to dry like the skins of animals. It has for ever lost the moral high ground and shown itself to be devoid of reason or wisdom, let alone empathy for the rights or status of others. It has brought Judiasm into such disrepute it unlikely ever to recover, and condemned the State of Israel itself to internation opprobrium and the seeds of its own destruction. Israel's leaders and members of its armed forces have been shown to be despicable war criminals and Western apologists of them as pusillaminous quislings of a foreign power, a hidden agenda, a secret state. What will it take to stop this madness and institute the changes necessary to allow Palestinians to live in peace and safety? Will thousands upon thousands of Israelis also have to die before it is achieved? https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2024/02/
Dear Jewish friends, my name is Sabbas Mertsanidis, I would like to present some arguments for the true location of Solomon's Temple.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE TRUE LOCATION OF SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
Dear Jewish friends, my name is Sabbas Mertsanidis, I would like to present some arguments for the true location of Solomon's Temple. First of all, let me convey to you my disgust for the criminal activity of Hamas, I wish good luck to your hostages and peace in Israel.
For five years, since 2017, as you can see on my FB wall, I have been studying the true position of the Temple and have expressed my opinion in groups and sites.
I am pleased to announce that I believe I have found, with the certainty required in this serious matter, the true position of Solomon's Temple, and I will now present to you some arguments in support of my assertion
My arguments are from the Bible and Josephus specifically from his book "History of the Jewish War against the Romans"
I now have maximum certainty about the following:
1) The current Wailing wall is not the ancient western precinct of the Temple but part of the ancient western wall that surrounded the city and which was left intact by Tito's forces in 70 AD. In particular, it is the beginning of the third wall that Josephus describes.
2) The current Mount of the Temple on which the Muslim mosques are located is the hill on which the Phasaelus, Hippicus, and Mariamne towers were located.
3) The ancient City of David is below the temples but it was not in the ancient lower city as believed but in the ancient upper city.
4) Ancient Jerusalem at the time of Jesus Christ was twice the size of what is generally believed. The upper and lower city of ancient Jerusalem of the classical conception of the city is actually only the upper city. And the actual expansion of Jerusalem, the new city or as it is otherwise called Vezetha, was not as large as depicted by the classical understanding of the ancient city.
5) The actual location of Solomon's Temple is on the hill of the Mount of Olives adjacent to the Wailing wall.
I also suspect that the Kidron Valley was destroyed by the Romans to reduce the city's defensive capability. The current valley of the Kidron is the ancient valley of Tyropoeon mentioned by Josephus. Titu's soldiers probably threw the blocks of the Temple into the ancient Kidron valley and covered it with earth. If this suspicion of mine is correct then the Jews not only can peacefully build Solomon's Temple on the Mount of Olives but even build it with their own ancient building materials. This scenario is very optimistic and looks like a miracle if it really is!
This article will be sent to sites, newspapers and archaeologists. I would request dear friends to share the article with those who are interested in the subject.
TWO MAPS FOR UNDERSTANDING MY POSITIONS
Before I start my arguments, I will explain two maps so that my positions can be understood and clearly even by citizens who have not dealt with this issue.
Now let's look at the maps.
One map of ancient Jerusalem is according to the classical view and the other is of modern Jerusalem where the boundaries of the ancient city are depicted according to my own estimation. My map is an amateur approach, which is however sufficient for what I want to show you, its details if correct, should be completed by archaeologists.
The map of ancient Jerusalem is a map of the era of the first revolt of the Jews against Titus in AD 70. Jerusalem is divided into three cities, the new city located in the northern part of the city, the upper (lower left in the image) and the lower (lower right in the image). For the topic we are studying, we are interested in the upper and lower city.
Regarding our study of the true location of the Temple, let us notice the following on the map with the classical view:
TEMPLE: The Temple is located on a hill above the city of David, in the extension of the lower city. I have marked the Temple with the number 1.
CITY OF DAVID: It is part of the lower city. East of the city of David is the Kidron Valley. I have marked the city of David with the number 2.
LOWER CITY: Includes the city of David and extends west to the upper city.
ACRA: It is the hill that raises the lower city and ends at the Mount of the Temple.
TOWERS: They are the Phasaelus, Hippicus, and Mariamne towers on a hill in the upper city. I have marked the area of the towers with the number 3.
SILOAM: Located at the lowest point of the City of David. I have marked the Siloam spring with the letter C.
It is important to note that according to the classical view the City of David is located in the lower city and the Temple Mount above the City of David as a continuous part of it.
An important element in our research is also the Siloam Spring located in the southern part of the City of David. If we prove that the city of David was indeed in the upper city, then the Temple which was in the extension of the lower city will necessarily be east of the city of David. The same is true of the Siloam spring. If east of the Siloam Spring is the Kidron Valley then the Siloam Spring and therefore the City of David are in the lower city according to the classical view. If something else is east of the Siloam spring then the Siloam spring and therefore the city of David is in the upper city and the Temple is east of them.
We will see Josephus in many places indicating the city of David and the Siloam spring in the upper city, and it is not possible for a man who lived in this city to be wrong in so many places.
Let us note the following for our study of the map from my own point of view:
TEMPLE: The Temple is located on the hill in the extension of the lower city. I have marked the Temple with the number 1. The temple is located on the Mount of Olives in a location that will be found by archaeological excavation.
CITY OF DAVID: It is a part of the upper city. To the east of the city of David is the Tyropoeon valley and the lower city. I have marked the city of David with the number 2.
LOWER CITY: It is east of the city of David.
ACRA: It is the hill that raises the lower city and ends at the Mount of the Temple as in the classical view with the difference that it does not include the City of David.
TOWERS: They are the Phasaelus, Hippicus, and Mariamne towers on a hill in the upper city, specifically above the city of David. I have marked the area of the towers with the number 3. The location of the Towers is on what is supposed to be today's Temple Mount.
SILOAM: It is located at the lowest point of the City of David, as in the classical view, with the difference that at the east of Siloam is not the Kidron Valley, but the Valley of the Tyropoeon. I have marked the Siloam spring with the letter C.
The ancient city of David (area 2) is the current city of David but as I said in my opinion it was in the upper city and not the lower. In other words, the expansion of the city took place in my opinion in the course of time from the upper city to the west to the lower city and under the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount was Mount Moriah and it was located opposite the City of David and not on the extension of Mount Zion on which the City of David was located. In my opinion, due to a historical error, the Mount of the Moriah Temple has today been included in the Mount of Olives.
I have not noted the second wall that Josephus describes because it is not relevant to my argument.
LET'S SEE THE ARGUMENTS:
1) THE WALL THAT SURROUNDED THE CITY
Josephus in his account of the first Jewish revolt against the Romans claims that the only wall that survived the destruction of the city by the legions of Titus in AD 70 was a section of the western wall that surrounded the city and not the western wall of the Temple precinct.
From the "History of the Jewish war against the Romans" by Josephus I submit the relevant text.
So, Josephus writes bookVIIChapter 1.
«1. NOW AS SOON as the army had no more people to slay, or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury: (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done:) Cæsar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city, and temple: but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency, that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne: and so much of the wall as inclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison: as were the towers also spared in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued. But for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground, by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to, by the madness of those that were for innovations. A city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind».
Josephus is clear. The city and the Temple were leveled and only a part of the wall from the west that surrounded the city and the fortresses Phasaelus, Hippicus and Mariamne was saved. On this western part of the wall Titus encamped the tenth legion (Legio X Fretensis) to guard the city.
We ask the following question: Since according to Josephus all the walls of the city were leveled except one, maybe that part of the western wall that Titus left intact was preserved over the centuries and is today's Western Wall?
Joseph based on his love for the Temple and his priestly office he held would report if any wall remained from the Temple. Did Titus was so foolish as to leave walls that would be a symbol of a re-warming of the Jewish faith?
2) THE WALL THAT WAS SAVED AND THE LEGION THAT REMAINED IN THE CITY
What part of the western wall remained intact?
Josephus tells us that Titus launched his attack on the third wall from an area that must have been near the Psephinus tower (position F in my figure) because during the battle Jews came out of the Hippicus tower (position A) with fires to burn the siege engines of the Romans. (Book 5/VI/ 5). Titus then destroyed most of the third wall. (Book 5/VII/2). We can be sure that Titus did not destroy a part of the third wall that was near the towers (Phasaelus,Hippicus and Mariamne) because the towers were dangerous from the presence of the Jews. Also, Titus' last attack was on the wall opposite Herod's palace (under the forts). (Book 6/VIII/1) Therefore, we are certain that the part of the western wall that surrounded the city and was between Herod's palace and somewhere near the Psephinus tower (AG in my figure) was not torn down during the war. It is the section of the third wall that started from the towers and ran north.
We ask again: Could this part of the third wall that surrounded the city and was not destroyed during the war be the wall that was left intact by Tito after the war and remains intact to this day?
On the wall left intact by Titus the tenth legion encamped.
If Titus left a wall for the tenth legion to encamp permanently on would this wall be away from the fortresses of Phasaelus, Hippicus and Mariamne which he left intact? How would he thus protect his legion away from the fortresses? Which serious general would do that? Most possible the western wall that Titus left intact and surrounded the city bordered these fortresses to provide security for the soldiers!
3) THE UPPER CITY AND THE CITY OF DAVID .
If we follow Josephus, we will see a different topography of ancient Jerusalem than the current topography.
Let's start with the Hippicus tower. The Hippicus tower was one of the fortresses that remained intact from the destruction of the city in 70 AD by the Romans. The current topography shows the ancient wall from the Hippicus tower (at position A in the images) to be directed south, while according to Josephus the ancient wall was first directed west and then south. Consequently, at the current site of the Tower of David, there was not the Tower of Phasaelus, as some claim, but another tower. It is no coincidence that in the classical view the wall is directed to the south and not to the west immediately after the Hippicus tower because if it is directed to the south the city of David is in the lower city below the Temple, but if the wall is directed to the west the city of David is in the upper city and therefore opposite the Temple.
Joseph writes:
«Now that wall began on the north, at the tower called Hippicus: and extended as far as the Xistus, a place so called, and then joining to the council house, ended at the west cloister of the temple. But if we go the other way westward, it began at the same place; and extended through a place called Bethso, to the gate of the Essens: and after that it went southward: having its bending above the fountain Siloam; where it also bends again towards the east at Solomon’s pool, and reaches as far as a certain place which they called Ophlas, where it was joined to the eastern cloister of the temple»book V/chapter 4/ 2
Note the classical view in one image and the Josephus narrative in my own image.
In the classical view from A which is the Hippicus fortress we go south to B which is the Essens gate and then east we meet the source of Siloam, i.e. the city of David in the lower city and thus below the Temple. However, the plan does not agree with Joseph's account.
Let's look at my own picture.
In the plan I have made of the ancient city from position A which is the current Temple Mount but is also the ancient position of the Hippicus tower we head west to B which is the Essens gate, then we head south according to Josephus to point C which is the spring of Siloam at the southern end of the city of David in the upper city, and then we go to Solomon's pool at the southern end of the Mount of Olives. So, the city of David was in the upper city and not in the lower one and had the northern border with the fortresses and not the Temple Mount.
It is very important that when the wall reaches the source of Siloam, it changes course to the east and reaches Solomon's pool. Therefore, to the east of the Siloam spring there is no Kidron valley, but we find monuments that are obviously monuments of the lower city. Therefore, since the Kidron valley is not east of the Siloam spring, the Siloam spring and the city of David are not in the lower city but in the upper one, under the hill with the fortresses.
4) THE LOWER CITY AND THE CITY OF DAVID
Joseph writes:
«Simon held the upper city, and the great wall, as far as Cedron; and as much of the old wall as bent from Siloam to the east; and which went down to the palace of Monobazus; who was King of the Adiabeni, beyond Euphrates. He also held that fountain; and the Acra, which was no other than the lower city. He also held all that reached to the palace of Queen Helena, the mother of Monobazus» Book V/ chapter 6/1
We notice again that to the east of Siloam the city continues (palace of King Monobazus) and we do not immediately encounter the Kidron valley as in the classical representation of the city.
From Siloam to Acra is the lower city as we understand from the description. If the lower city is from Siloam to Acra, then Siloam is its western end and Acra the eastern. Therefore, the source of Siloam and the city of David are located in the upper city and specifically on the border with the lower city.
The lower city, according to the above text of Josephus, has as its western limit the palaces of Helen. Note that when he says that the lower city extends to the palace of Helen, he means to the west. However, Josephus mentions (Book 6, Chapter 6/3) that the palaces of Queen Helen are in the Acropolis, that is, in the City of David. The palaces of Helen and the city of David are the western boundary of the lower city.
To summarize: The upper city of ancient Jerusalem includes the city of David. The lower city is located between the spring of Siloam - city of David and Acra. Siloam is the border between the upper and lower city and is not to the east of the lower city as the classical view claims.
5) THE LOCATION OF THE PHASAELUS, HIPPICUS AND MARIAMNE TOWERS
Joseph gives us the information that the towers (Phasaelus, Hippicus, Mariamne) were built on a hill, in a position higher than the rest of the city.
Josephus Book v/ 4/4
«Now as these towers were so very tall, they appeared much taller by the place on which they stood. For that very old wall wherein they were, was built on a high hill; and was itself a kind of elevation that was still thirty cubits taller. Over which were the towers situate, and thereby were made much higher to appearance».
The area of today's Temple Mount is higher than the ancient City of David, and we wonder if the site now called the Temple Mount is actually the hill where the ancient towers stood.
6) THE TOWERS AND THE CITY OF DAVID I
The Romans after the destruction of the Temple having dominated the lower city fight the Jewish rebels who have taken refuge in the upper city.
Joseph writes:
«On the next day the Romans drove the robbers out of the lower city, and set all on fire as far as Siloam. These soldiers were indeed glad to see the city destroyed. But they missed the plunder, because the seditious had carried off all their effects, and were retired into the upper city» Book 6 Chapter 7/2
We notice once again that as the rebels flee to the upper city, the lower city burns up to Siloam. Siloam is the boundary between the upper and lower city. There we expect to find the city of David.
The Romans build ramparts for their siege engines and attack the upper city from the wall opposite Herod's palace. Book 6/VIII/1
Joseph then writes:
«And now were the banks finished on the seventh day of the month Gorpieus, [Elul,] in eighteen days' time, when the Romans brought their machines against the wall. But for the seditious, some of them, as despairing of saving the city, retired from the wall to the citadel; others of them went down into the subterranean vaults, though still a great many of them defended themselves against those that brought the engines for the battery; yet did the Romans overcome them by their number and by their strength; and, what was the principal thing of all, by going cheerfully about their work, while the Jews were quite dejected, and become weak. Now as soon as a part of the wall was battered down, and certain of the towers yielded to the impression of the battering rams, those that opposed themselves fled away, and such a terror fell upon the tyrants, as was much greater than the occasion required » Book VI/ Chapter 8/4
So, we are in the upper city and we notice that in the upper city there are the following:
1) Herod's palace
2) The three towers
3) The Acropolis
The ancient Greek word "άκρα" used by Josephus is translated as Acropolis. What does Josephus mean by the word "άκρα"? It means the city of David because from the time of the Maccabees onwards the city of David is called "άκρα".
ΑΜακ. 1,33 καὶ ᾠκοδόμησαν τὴν πόλιν Δαυὶδ τείχει μεγάλῳ καὶ ἰσχυρῷ, πύργοις ὀχυροῖς, καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς εἰς ἄκραν
Translation:
«Then they built up the City of David with a high, strong wall and strong towers, and it became their citadel» 1 Maccabees1:33
ἄκραν= citadel= Acropolis
The Acropolis is the city of David and is in the upper city along with the fortresses.
It is good to note the following: when Josephus in his text writes the word "Άκρα" he means the hill on which the lower city rests, and when he writes "άκρα" he means the city of David.
Why don't the Romans enter the upper city from the lower city and attack the wall on the outside, opposite Herod's palace? Apparently because the Acropolis,i.e., the City of David, stands in their way.
The rebellious Jews lose their morale when part of the wall they are defending collapses as well as the towers that succumbed to the siege engines and take refuge in the Acropolis. If the Acropolis was in the lower city, how could they get to it since the lower city is controlled by the Romans? From the wall and the towers, they take refuge in the Acropolis because it is next to them, in the upper city. Therefore, the towers are near the Acropolis, that is, the city of David, and all these together are in the upper city.
7) THE TOWERS AND THE CITY OF DAVID II
We are at the point where the Romans have taken over the upper city and the Jewish rebels are abandoning the towers and fleeing. Josephus tells us that the rebels immediately take refuge in the gorge below Siloam. Given that the lower city is controlled by the Romans and the rebels fleeing the towers immediately flee to Siloam, which is at the southern end of the City of David, we understand again that the city of David is directly below the towers and all of this are in the upper city.
Joseph writes:
« So they now left these towers of themselves, or rather they were ejected out of them by God himself, and fled immediately to that valley which was under Siloam, where they again recovered themselves out of the dread they were in for a while, and ran violently against that part of the Roman wall which lay on that side;» Book VI/ Chapter 8/5
THELOCATION OF THE CITY OF DAVID TO THE MACCABEANSThere is a passage in Maccabees where we can see the location of the City of David and the Temple in parallel. The city of David has been taken by Gentiles and they have fortified it. Judas Maccabeus liberates the city and the Temple except the city of David which was fortified by the Gentiles. Judas is killed and his brother Jonathan takes over to lead the revolution. He decides to rebuild the city walls and the walls to the east in the Kidron Valley. At the time of the rebuilding of the walls at the Kidron Valley, the gentiles were in the city of David fortified.
If the city of David was in the Kidron stream below the Temple, how is Jonathan rebuilding the city in the Kidron stream when the Gentiles are there fortified in the city of David? So, the city of David was in the upper city, and Jonathan freely fortified the city in the Kidron torrent below the Temple.
«When Jonathan returned, he convened the elders of the people and planned with them to build strongholds in Judea, to build the walls of Jerusalem still higher, and to erect a high barrier between the citadel and the city to separate it from the city, in order to isolate it so that its garrison could neither buy nor sell. So, they gathered together to rebuild the city; part of the wall on the valley to the east had fallen, and he repaired the section called Chaphenatha» 1 Maccabees 12(35-37)
9) THE GIHON SPRING AND THE KIDRON VALLEY
The Gihon spring in the Bible is mentioned as being next to a stream but never in the Bible is it mentioned that the spring is in the Kidron Valley. It is an arbitrary conclusion that the Gihon spring was at the Kidron Valley. If the Gihon spring was in the Kidron Valley gorge this would be clearly mentioned in the Bible because it is a known gorge. The Kidron Valley passes outside the Temple, but the Gihon Spring is outside the City of David in the Tyropoeon Valley.
It should be noted that in my opinion what we call today the valley of the Kidron Valley is the Tyropoeon valley mentioned by Josephus. It was not the Tyropoeon Valley as held by the classical view but the Valley of the Kidron Valley by Titus' forces that was destroyed, and I will explain below why this happened.
10) THE STONES OF THE TEMPLE AND THE KIDRON VALLEY
Josephus in his book uses the Greek word "νεών κατασκάπτειν" which does not simply mean that Titus destroyed the Temple, but that he plowed it, i.e. destroyed it from its foundations.
About the destroyed Temple, Josephus writes in book 7/VIII/7
«And I cannot but wish that we had all died, before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner».
Josephus also writes:
«Of its stones some of them were forty five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth» Book V/v/6
Where did the boulders that were uprooted from the Temple go? Did Titus leave them in Temple place? If Titus left the stones in Temple place wouldn't there be a risk that the Jews would rebuild their Temple at some time?
The most plausible is that Romans threw the stones from the entire Temple complex into the Kidron Valley and then filled the canyon reducing the height of the hill. This would have been a good strategic move by Titus as apart from the risk of rebuilding the Temple the most serious attacks against the Romans in AD 70 were made twice, both against the legion encamped on the Mount of Olives. By filling up the valley of the Kidron Valley, the defensive ability of Jerusalem from the East was significantly reduced.
In the image with the classical view of the ancient city, the Tyropoeon valley mentioned by Josephus separates the upper from the lower city. Today there is no such valley. How is it explained from the classical point of view how the Tyropoeon valley was lost?
The Tyropoeon valley was not lost in my opinion and it is the current Kidron Valley. It is the ancient valley of the Kidron that was lost. The ancient valley of the Kidron, as I mentioned, was lost because the stones of the Temple ended up there and was filled up’.
11) THE PROBLEM OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE TEMPLE MOUNT
I read on WIKIPEDIA about the dimensions of the Temple: "The trapezoidal area is 488m long in the west, 470m in the east, 315m in the north and 280m in the south"
Total perimeter: 470+315+280+488=1553 meters.
A stadium is 185 meters, so we have a perimeter of 8.4 stadium for the Temple Mount greater than the 6 stadiums perimeter given by Josephus (Book 5/V/2) for the Temple precinct including the perimeter of the Antonia fortress.
I read that the Mishnah (Midot 2:1) says that the Temple Mount formed a square with a side of 500 cubits, that is, about 220 meters. This gives us a perimeter of 880 meters and thus 4.75 stadium close to the perimeter of 6 stadia given by Josephus which however includes the perimeter of Antonia. Also, Josephus, when Titus demolished the Antonia fortress to attack the Temple, tells us that the shape of the Temple was square.
The dimensions of Herod's Temple and its square shape are far from the current dimensions and trapezoidal shape of the supposed Temple Mount.
We rule out the western length of the Temple precinct being 488 meters and we are looking for what this long length of 488 meters could be. Could it be a part of the western wall that surrounded the city and remained intact from the destruction of the Romans according to the testimony of Josephus? I read that archaeologists still haven't found the third wall described by Josephus. Could today's so-called Western Wall (AG in my shape) be the part of the third wall that archaeologists are looking for?
12) THE OUTER GATES
Josephus writes about the main Temple: "The western part had no gate, and the wall was continuous" Book 5/V/ 2. And he also writes about the precinct of the Temple: "The Romans, considering it futile, now that the Temple was burning, to pity the neighboring buildings, they set fire to them, as well as the remains of the arcades and gates, except for two, one in the east and one in the west, but these were later leveled". Book 6/V/2. Josephus therefore refers to the gates of the Temple enclosure that were leveled. If the gates of the outer enclosure were definitely leveled and the rest of the Temple was leveled, why the walls of the Temple enclosure not leveled as well?
13) THE PROBLEM OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ANCIENT JERUSALEM
Let's observe the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem (upper and lower city) and the new city walled by Herod Agrippa A.
1) From 1000 BC when David made Jerusalem the capital until 70 AD, Jerusalem has grown and accommodates thousands of citizens. Is it possible for so many people to inhabit a small space that includes only the lower and upper city as marked on the classic map? On my map there is twice as much space to accommodate the large population of the city. The upper and lower city of the classical map of ancient Jerusalem is only the upper city on my map with the ancient Tyropoeon Valley being the present Kidron Valley. Ancient Jerusalem was larger than some believe.
2) If we observe the third wall that surrounded the new city, we will find that the extent of the new city is unacceptable big on the map with the classical depiction of the city. Josephus gives us the information that the population of the new city was sparsely populated (Book 5/VI/2) and also gives us the information that it was newly built (Book 5/IV/2). It is like the city suddenly more than doubled in size from the time of, perhaps, Jesus Christ until the death of Herod Agrippa A’ in 44 AD, while for a millennium it remained stable. Such a large extension of the third wall is wrong and I believe it was done to make the perimeter of the city agree with the 33 stadiums of perimeter mentioned by Josephus. In my own scheme, because I give a more realistic picture of the extent of the city, the expansion of the city (new city) is also more realistic. I should note that the new city is called Vezetha in Hebrew.
3) On the classic map Golgotha is inside the city but I moved it outside the city on my own map because I believe that while a cemetery was not inhabited for hundreds of years, from about 30 AD to 40 AD is not a long time that Golgotha may be inhabited.
14) THE TEMPLE AND THE HOLY ROCK
From photos of the "sacred rock" of the Dome of the Rock, I noticed that it is of large dimensions.
Why is such a large object not mentioned in any description of the Temple?
The Temple is described in 1 Kings 6, 2 Chronicles 3 with absolutely no reference to any sacred stone.
Josephus gives a detailed description of the Temple but nowhere does he refer to any sacred stone. Are the steps and columns described by Josephus more valuable than Abraham's supposed altar? If there was such a sacred stone would not Josephus have described it?
Does Ezekiel in the detailed description of the future Temple make place for a sacred stone?
In the descriptions of the Temple there is no stone like the one we see on the Dome Rock. The stone that is in the Dome of the Rock if it was Abraham's altar there would be extensive reference in the Bible. So it's not
There is no description of a sacred stone in the Temple because there was no sacred stone in the Temple. This is logical.
But what could be this stone in the Dome of the Rock ?
If we assume that Joseph's testimony is correct, then the current area of the Temple Mount is probably the area of the large towers that existed in the area:Hippicus,Phasaelus, and Mariamne and possibly the supposed holy rock is one of the foundations of these towers.
15) THE FORTRESSES AND THE MOSQUE OF OMAR
It is possible that the mosque of Omar was built on the ruins of the Phasaelus, Hippicus and MariamneFortresses. Herod was great at building architectural structures and he certainly built underground infrastructure under the fortresses to be able to escape if needed. One of the leaders of the rebels, Simon, probably took refuge in such an underground structure when he was besieged by the Romans in the Phasaelus tower. The underground space today under the Omar Mosque is probably the underground space of a fortress. I think it would not be difficult for archaeologists to understand if this is indeed true.
THE MISTAKE OF THE WESTERN WALL
The misunderstanding of the western wall that surrounded the city as the western wall of the Temple was done very easily and quickly.
In a ruined space where no one could orientate the Jewish popular piety over time probably saw in this wall something from the Temple. The Jews were almost exterminated, there were few left in their area and they were forbidden to stay in Jerusalem for a long time. The same happened with the revolution of Bar Kokhba in 132-135 AD. The Jews after some generations lost the sense of space they had in Jerusalem.
Josephus writes that the destruction of the city, even before its complete razing, was to an extent that did not allow the orientation of the Jews to it.
Josephus F 8 (chapter 1): "The war had obliterated all signs of beauty, and he who had known her of old, if he chanced to be here suddenly, would not be able to recognize the place, and, though he were there, would seek to find the city".
We can understand that along the way, if some citizens said that this wall is, for example, the A wall, and only one said that it is the western wall of the Temple, over time, the latter's opinion would prevail.
Because of the Jewish misconception of the wall, the Muslim mosques of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa were built on a site that is not holy to the Jews.
SO WHAT IS THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE TEMPLE?
If the current Wailing Wall is the Western Wall that surrounded the city then the real location of the Temple must be from 800 to 1000 meters east of the Wailing Wall.
The ancient Temple is therefore on some hill on the Mount of Olives.
It is the work of archaeologists to find the specific spot on the Mount of Olives where the Temple was located.
A possible location of the ancient Temple is on the hill that is the cemetery and the northernmost hill maybe is the ancient hill of Vezetha.
There is the possibility, as I said, that the Kidron valley was filled with the stones of the Temple. In this case it would be possible to rebuild the Temple with its own stones.
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT
It would be remiss not to mention the Ark of the Covenant which I believe has a direct relationship with the fate of the Temple.
When Jerusalem was besieged by the Babylonians, the priests in the Temple were Seraiah and Zephaniah. We can make the reasonable assumption that in order to preserve the Ark of the Covenant they buried it in a hidden place in the Temple and built a fake one so that the invaders would not look for the real one.
The Babylonians captured the priests and gatekeepers and killed them. (2 Kings 25/18). Apparently to their credit the priests did not testify to the secret which was lost with their death.
I am not claiming that things happened that way. I submit that there is a possibility that things happened this way and that the Ark of the Covenant is buried under the ruins of the Temple on the Mount of Olives.
Probably the Jewish cemetery of the Mount of Olives protected the location of the Temple and the destruction of the second Temple made it possible to find the Ark of the Covenant in its ruins.
Indeed, if the Romans filled up the Kidron valley, the Ark of the Covenant will not be deeply buried at the top of the hill due to the reduction in the height of Temple Mount, i.e., Mount Moriah.
There is an optimistic scenario, rather a miracle that I personally cannot rule out. From the ruins of the Temple to find its place, to build the Temple from its own building materials and also to find the place where the Holy of Holies is from the Ark of the Covenant because I don't think the priests buried the Ark in a place different from what he had because of the sanctity of that spot.
EPILOGUE
Dear friends, I think the matter is quite serious and this article will remain firmly on my wall as a cover until a clear answer is given. Please send the article to friends and archaeologists you know in case someone is motivated to investigate the matter or provide a clear answer.
I personally study the subject through books and unfortunately it has been impossible for me to go to Jerusalem and study the subject.
In a photo of the Temple Mount see two hills of Mount Olives opposite the Temple. Is it possible that one hill is the location of the ancient Temple and the northernmost hill is the Vezetha hill mentioned by Josephus? Have these sites been excavated?
Dear friends, I have created a group for the search and reflection on the actual location of the Temple with the title RESEARCH ON THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON With a sincere desire to seek the true position of the Temple, whatever that position may be, you are welcome for dialogue and counterargument.
Dear friends, I think I have given some clues enough to make us wonder if the possible location of the Temple is on the Mount of Olives.
I support an optimistic point of view that looks rather like a miracle and let’s accept that it is 1% correct and the current understanding of the position of the Temple is 99% correct. That is why, even the small percentage, we have every right to support our point until excavations are done on the Mount of Olives.
Sabbas Mertsanidis
Katerini, Greece
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.