ADS 336x280 Here...
Sorry folks, this is gonna be a dry post.I received an interesting DVD recording of a lecture by James Tabor about a minority opinion of Ernest Martin that the temple in Jerusalem was not located where the Dome of the Rock is, but rather much further south. The DVD was sent to me from the Biblical Archeology Society in thanks for my responding to some survey many moons ago. I found Martin's new perspective fascinating and worth considering at least until someone can find definitive proof for any of the other 3 main theories.
Tabor made a point that his lecture was not based on archaeological finds because until now there have not been any definitive archaeological finds that indicate that the Haram is the site of the former temples. And there may never be archaeological proof, considering that "It [Jerusalem] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was nothing left to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited" (War VII.1,1).
So the Herodian temple that Tabor (and Martin) would explore would be one based on the literary evidence rather than the archeology. Below is how most scholars imagine the Temple. The top of the picture is north, depicting the Antonia Fortress.
Based on Josephus’ writings, from the ramparts of Antonia fortress one could look down into the inner area of the temple courtyard. If temple was at the Dome of Rock and the fortress Antonia is to be identified by what we today call by that name (north of the Haram Al sharif), one would need periscope to accomplish this. (An alternate theory by Kaufman claims that temple must be closer to the northern fortress to avoid this difficulty).
In the above image, the temple, according to Martin, is located in the left structure (which there are no remains) instead of in the middle of the right structure (Haram). The left of the image is south while the right is due north. The current Fortress Antonia is not depicted and would be further to the right (due north) as in the first image.
From Martin: "What Josephus describes as the Temple and Fort Antonia does NOT fit any part (or in any way) the Haram esh-Sharif that scholars believe today to be the remains of the Temple .
"Josephus said the Temple of Herod was built high up on a platform that had four walls around it forming a precise square of 600 feet on each side. This description in no way fits the dimensions of the Haram. Josephus said the wall of its southeast corner had its foundations directly in the deepest part of the Kidron Valley (in the streambed itself) and that its height was 300 cubits (450 feet, or about the height of a modern 40 story building). Near the northwest corner Josephus said this external Temple wall was connected to Fort Antonia by two side-by-side colonnade roadways (each 600 feet long). Josephus then said that Fort Antonia itself was built around a notable "Rock" that was viewed as the centerpiece feature of the interior of the Fort (which was also known as the Praetorium). This well-recognized "Rock" in the Praetorium around which Fort Antonia was built was called the lithostrotos in the Gospel of John (19:13) and Christ stood on it when judged by Pilate. Josephus said that Antonia’s size was much larger than the Temple (he described Fort Antonia as the size of a city and it contained a full legion of Roman troops with many open spaces for military exercises and training). Fort Antonia was so large that Josephus said it obscured the whole of the Temple square from the north."
Specific quotes from Josephus are as follows “…the level area on its summit originally barely sufficed for shine and altar, the ground around being precipitous and steep [300 cubits/150 ft{15 story building}, cf JW 5.188]…through constant additions…hilltop…was widened (JW 5.184-185). Herod doubled its size in the 15yr of his reign (Jewish Wars 1.31)
“The interior [Antonia fortress] resembled a palace in its spaciousness and appointments, being divided into apartments of every description and for every purpose, including cloisters, baths, and broad courtyards for the accommodation of troops, so that from its possession of all conveniences it seemed a town (Polis or city!) from its magnificence a palace…three of these turrets were 50 cubits high, while at the SE angle rose 70 cubits, AND SO COMMANDED A VIEW OF THE WHOLE AREA OF THE TEMPLE…for a Roman cohort {=100 troops} (literally 'togma'=‘legion’ 6000 troops plus auxiliary) was permanently quartered there and at the festivals took up positions in arms around porticos to watch the people and suppress any insurrectionary movement. For if the temple lay as a fortress over the city, Antonia dominated the temple…The hill Bezetha was as I said cut off from Antonia, the highest of all hills…formed on the north the only obstruction to the view of the temple." JW 5.238-246
Even the mishna describes what one would see when going south from Ramallah. If temple was by Haram, then it would have been seen easier. But if Haram is Antonia and imposing and blocking of view, this better jives with the mishna that the temple was obscurred.
Martin: "All archaeologists and historians today (including Ritmeyer [who holds the dominant theory that Dome of Rock was the site of temple]) readily admit that the Haram esh-Sharif is the only facility of pre-destruction Jerusalem that survived the war with its foundation stones still in evidence. Those four Herodian walls of Fort Antonia and its interior buildings were the only man-made structures that Titus the Roman general allowed to remain for the protection of the Tenth Legion left to monitor Roman affairs. And Josephus said Antonia was built around a prominent "Rock" just like we see in the Haram esh-Sharif under the Dome of the Rock.
"In fact, as late as Maimonides (during the Crusade period), the great Jewish philosopher said the Temple was then in total ruins (while the Haram area was NOT in ruins but was heavily built upon by the Christians and Muslims).
"Then slightly later, the Jewish authority Rabbi David Kimchi [RaDaQ~ early 13th cntury CE] also stated that the Jewish Temple was still in utter ruins and (Kimchi added the important observation) that no Christian or Muslim had ever built over the spot where the true Temples stood."
Yet "in 692 A.D., the Sixth Caliph, Abn el-Malik, built the Dome of the Rock over this "oblong Rock." As late as the time of Saladin in the period of the Crusades, the court recorder of Saladin wrote that that "Rock" under the Dome of the Rock was the same "Rock" that always had the footprints of Jesus embedded on it that were left there when Pilate judged Jesus in the Praetorium (or, Fort Antonia ). So, as late as the Crusades, it was known that the "Rock" under the Dome of the Rock was the lithostrotos (the structured Rock) mentioned in the Gospel of John (19:13) where Jesus stood at his judgment by Pilate. This evidence proves positively that throughout all the historical periods up to the Crusades it was recognized that the Dome of the Rock area in the Haram esh-Sharif was indeed the site of Fort Antonia , and NOT the Temple."
Martin then tries to make an extraordinary claim, that the temple was actually above the Gihon Spring (which is south of the Haram). He says, "Another eyewitness account was given by Aristeas in 285 B.C. He said the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water, and Tacitus the Roman historian in 100 A.D. also mentioned this inexhaustible spring that was located within the walls of the Temple just before its destruction by the Romans."
He continues and tries to quote from biblical passages that the temple was above the Gihon spring. I briefly looked at the sources and it didn't seem compelling (but I need to read more). Why would the Biblical writers not specify this fact, if it were indeed so? I guess Martin doesn't think this should be a dry post.
Martin notes that "We have absolute documentary evidence that 70 Jewish families in the seventh century were allowed by Omar (the Second Caliph) to settle in Jerusalem . They informed Omar that they wanted to reside in the SOUTHERN part of Jerusalem so they could be near the Siloam water system and to be near the site of their former Temple . Omar, who was then building his Al Aqsa Mosque in the southern extremity of the Haram, allowed them their request. This historical fact is found in a fragment of a letter discovered in the Geniza library of Egypt now in Cambridge University in England."
I wonder what makes Martin think that 'near' the temple means directly by the spring. Maybe within walking distance to Haram area is considered by these people to be 'near.'
Martin continues, "Interestingly, in this document (and in all pre-Crusade records), Jews showed no interest in the "Rock" now under the Dome of the Rock. Their sole attention was to the area SOUTH of Haram and the Muslim government buildings.
I find the earlier portions of this post and his argument stronger than the last. I will link to a few articles that either are good summaries or very detailed. Let me know what you think.
-
