Ernest L. Martin<\/b><\/p>\n
The following essay is an edited version of Dr. Ernest L. Martin \u2018s internet article in which summarizes the major arguments of his hook, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot. Dr. Martin postulates that the original site of the Temple was located over the Gihon Spring, not the traditional locution where the \u201cDome of the Rock,\u201d or Haram esh-Sharif, is currently situated. To read Dr. Martin \u2018s complete Internet Edition, go to http:\/\/www.askelm.com\/.\u2014Ed<\/i>.<\/p>\n
Introductory Comments<\/b><\/p>\n
A new and accurate evaluation is essential regarding the site of the former Temples in Jerusalem, Neither the Dome of the Rock near the center of the Haram esh-Sharif in Jerusalem, nor the Al Aqsa Mosque occupying the southern side of the Haram (nor ANY area within the four walls of that Haram) was the real spot in Jerusalem where the holy Temples of God were located. Biblical and literary accounts dogmatically place the site of all the Temples over the Gihon Spring just north of the ancient City of David (Zion) on the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. All the present antagonists fighting in Jerusalem over the Temple site are warring over (and for) the wrong place. They need to turn their swords and guns into plowshares.<\/p>\n
The Importance of the Gihon Spring<\/b><\/p>\n
The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 BC. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple. About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior. These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem). It was because of the strategic location of this single spring that the original Canaanite cities of \u201cMigdol Edar\u201d and \u201cJebus\u201d were built over and around that water source before the time of King David. The Gihon Spring is located even today at the base of what was called the \u201cOphel\u201d (a swelling of the earth in the form of a small mountain dome) once situated just to the north, and abutting. \u201cMount Zion\u201d (the City of David). So close was the Ophel Mound to the City of David that David began to till in the area between the two summits with dirt and stones (calling it the Millo<\/i> or \u201cfill in\u201d) to make a single high level area on which to build his city and later the Temple (2 Sm 5:9). David\u2019s son Solomon completed the \u201cfill in\u201d between the two summits and called that earthen and rock bridge the Millo<\/i> (1 Kgs 11:27). Solomon then built the Temple on the Ophel Mound directly above the Gihon Spring. The area of the Dome of the Rock, however, is 300 m (1000 ft) north of the original City of David. Also, there has never been a natural water spring within the Haram esh-Sharif. That fact alone disqualifies the area around the Dome of the Rock from being the site of the former Temples.<\/p>\n
The Temple as portrayed by Dr. E. Martin. Dr. Martin\u2019s thesis is that the Temple of Jesus\u2019 time was over the Gihon Spring, south of what is known today as the \u201cDome of the rock\u201d and the traditional site of the Temple.<\/b><\/p>\n
The Ark of the Covenant and the Gihon Spring<\/b><\/p>\n
When David took the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem he made a special tent (tabernacle) for it and pitched it over the Gihon Spring.1 For the next 27 years of David\u2019s reign (and for the first 11 years of Solomon\u2014that is, for 38 years)the Ark remained in this particular tent at and over the Gihon Spring. That is where Solomon was crowned king (1 Kgs 1:38. 39). This led the Jewish authorities to demand that all later kings of Judah he crowned at a spring. The Psalms show that the Temples (called \u201cGod\u2019s Houses\u201d) had to have spring waters emerging from their interiors. Notice Psalm 87:1-3.7(KJV).<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 112<\/p>\n
The Gihon Spring the Jerusalem. Entrance to the Jebusite water system in the middle of the trees in the left center. Modern entrance to the Gihon Spring is below on the lower right corner. Dr. Martin suggests that the Temple was constructed at this location.<\/b><\/p>\n
His [God\u2019s] foundation is in the holy mountain. The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob. Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God. The singers as the players on instruments shall be there [in the Temple]: ALL MY SPRINGS ARE TN THEE [in the Temple].<\/p>\n
The fact that the Psalmist stated that \u201cALL MY [God\u2019s] SPRINGS\u201d (\u201csprings,\u201d plural) were located in Zion (NOT anywhere else) and though the Gihon is only one spring is no problem because the single Gihon is even called in the Scriptures \u201csprings\u201d (plural) (2 Chr 32:3\u20134). The fact that \u201cone spring\u201d is pluralized (if not an idiomatic usage) can be accounted for because of the peculiar manner in which the Gihon produces its waters. The spring thrusts out its water as much as five times a day in the springtime when water is plentiful (with intervals when there is no water at all. The word \u201cGihon\u201d means \u201cto gush.\u201d In the dry season the flow may occur a few minutes once a day. This oscillating effect of the Gihon could be a reason the ancients called this single spring with the plural word \u201csprings.\u201d<\/p>\n
Whatever the case, Aristeas and Tacitus both staled that the Temple of Jerusalem had an inexhaustible spring within its interior and the Gihon is the only spring in Jerusalem and the Scriptures affirm it. And since there was only ONE SPRING in the Jerusalem area, all the Temples of God had to be built over that single spring associated with the southeast ridge. The Haram esh-Sharif region (though it has 37 cisterns) has NO SPRINGS and there is not the slightest historical or geological evidence that it ever had a spring!2 <\/p>\n
The Temple Was Situated in the Center of Early Jerusalem<\/b><\/p>\n
There is another way of showing the location of the original Temples. Josephus said that the \u201cLower City\u201d which was once the site of the elevated Citadel (Akra<\/i> or the City of David) was on a ridge shaped like a crescent moon (JW 5.4.1:137). That is, when one observed this ridge from the Mount of Olives, it appeared \u201ccrescent-shaped\u201d in a north to south view and its \u201chorns\u201d pointed toward the Kidron Valley. The northern \u201chorn\u201d would have been near the present southern wall of the Haram esh-Sharif. The exact center of the \u201ccrescent-shaped\u201d ridge would have been at the Ophel Mound directly over the Gihon Spring. Remarkably, we have an eyewitness account by Hecateus of Abdera written near the time of Alexander the Great that informs us the Temple was located \u201cnearly in the center of the city\u201d (Ag Ap<\/i> 1.22). Coupled with this observation, we have other eyewitnesses in the Holy Scriptures telling us the same thing. Note, for example. Psalm 116:18\u201319 (KJV).<\/p>\n
Ancient City of David and Gihon Spring taken from the Mt. of Olives. On the right edge of the picture can just be seen the modern road that skirts the southern edge of the ancient city of Jerusalem\u2019s walls. To the right of that road, off the picture, is the traditional site of the Temple of Jesus\u2019 day, known today as the Haram esh-Sharif. At the left edge of the picture, in the valley, dirt can be seen from the excavations of the \u201cCity of David\u201d and the Gihon Spring where Dr. Martin believes the Temple was located.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 113<\/p>\n
I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his people, in the courts of the Lord\u2019s house [within the Temple], in the midst [center] of thee, O Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, we also have a geographical designation in the Scriptures that confirms the centrality of the Temple on the southeast ridge. In 2 Kgs 23:13 it mentions a spot on the southern flank (or extended spur) of the Mount of Olives that was directly to the cast of the Jerusalem that existed at that time. The text states:<\/p>\n
The high places that were before<\/i> Jerusalem [that is, east of Jerusalem], which were on the right hand on the Hill of Corruption [on the southern right hand spur of the Mount of Olives]. (KJV)<\/p>\n
Since the highest point of the Mount of Olives is directly east of the Dome of the Rock (which is about 300 m [1000 ft] north of the Gihon Spring), this statement refers to a very different area much further south, an area that was directly east of the Jerusalem of that time.<\/p>\n
The present Haram esh-Sharif, where the Dome of the Rock now exists, can IN NO WAY be considered to have been the center of Jerusalem. In the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus, the Haram was about 36 acres of land located in the northeast part\u2014one of the most northerly areas in Jerusalem. In the time of Solomon (and even in Herod\u2019s time) this northeast area would have been a lop-sided extension to the southeast ridge. The Temple, however, was in the center<\/i> of Jerusalem, not in the extreme north.<\/p>\n
What Happened to the Temple After the Jewish\/Roman War of AD 66 to 70?<\/b><\/p>\n
Jesus had some important words to say about the future status of the Temple and its walls. Standing outside the east Temple walls. Jesus told his disciples that not one stone of the Temple and its support buildings would be left on top the other (Mt 24:1\u20132; Mk 13:1\u20132: Lk 21:5\u20136). And in Lk 19:43\u201344 Jesus expanded the scope of destruction even further. He said:<\/p>\n
For the days shall come upon thee [Jerusalem], that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. And shall lay thee [Jerusalem] even with the ground,<\/i> and thy children within thee: and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another,<\/i> because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation. (KJV)<\/p>\n
We have eyewitness accounts of both Josephus and Titus (the Roman general who conducted the war against the Jews) who give descriptions of the utter ruin of Jerusalem. Josephus and Titus mentioned that if they had not been in Jerusalem during the war and personally seen the destruction that took place, they would not have believed that there was once a city in the area (JW 6.1.1; 7.1.1). But they were eyewitnesses to its utter ruin. It is significant that Josephus used the exact words of Jesus\u2019 prophecy to describe the ruined condition of Jewish Jerusalem. He said:<\/p>\n
It [Jerusalem] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground<\/i> by those that dug it up to the foundation,<\/i> that there was nothing left to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited (JW<\/i> 7.1.1).<\/p>\n
Only One Architectural Facility Survived the Jewish\/Roman War in Jerusalem<\/b><\/p>\n
Only one architectural edifice from the Jerusalem of Herod and Jesus survived the war. Of all the buildings of former Jerusalem it was only the former Roman camp that Titus (the Roman general) allowed to remain. And it is still in evidence today. That was Port Antonia, the major fortress built by Herod the Great that was much larger than the Temple in size. Josephus said it was as large as a city (he used the plural, cities<\/i>) and could hold a full Legion of troops (JW 8.8.7). Titus thought at first to demolish this fortress, but on second though he put it to Roman use and it became the camp of the Romans in the Jerusalem area. Since its prodigious walls were still very much in place after the war (and there were 37 huge cisterns for an adequate water supply inside its walls), the Tenth Legion had a ready-built fortress to protect them. Josephus said that Fort Antonia was built around a massive and prominent outcropping of rock that was a notable protective feature within its precincts (JW 5.5.8).<\/p>\n
Model of Jerusalem in Jesus\u2019 time. This 1 to 50 scale model of Jerusalem located at the Holy Land Hotel in Jerusalem. It shows how those who constructed the model envisioned the city looking from the south. In the center of the picture is the ancient \u201cCity of David.\u201d To the left of the city, in the middle of the picture, is the Tyropean Valley running from north to south. On the right (east) of the city, just to the left of the chain fence in the picture, is the Kidron Valley and the location of the Gihon Spring that, Dr. Martin argues, was the location of the Temple. Overlooking the \u201cCity of David\u201d at the top of the picture is a large structure which represents the walls of the traditional site of the Temple mount.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 114<\/p>\n
A model of Fortress Antonia at the Holy Land Hotel in Jerusalem. This model depicts the traditional understanding of the how the Fortress Antonia looked. It shows the four towers of the Fortress Antonia in the center of the picture. In the foreground, behind the wall, was the location of the \u201cPool of Bethesda\u201d.<\/b><\/p>\n
This description by Josephus fits perfectly the present Haram esh-Sharif with its majestic Herodian and pre-Herodianwalls and with the present Dome of the Rock now covering that significant outcropping of rock. Fort Antonia was also called the Roman Praetorium and it was the place where Pilate sentenced Jesus to crucifixion. The central rock outcropping was a significant spot in the fortress, as Josephus stated. The apostle John also singled it out for comment regarding the judgment of Jesus. John called it the lithostrothon<\/i> a rock, on which people could stand and be judged, (Jn 19:13). This \u201cRock\u201d had a Hebrew name: Gabbatha,<\/i> or an important high place<\/i>. The Haram esh-Sharif, built around this well known \u201crock outcropping.\u201d was the only building with its four massive walls to survive the Jewish\/Roman War. We can still see its stones in place in its lower courses.<\/p>\n
The Scriptures Show that NO Stationary Rock Was Ever Associated with the Temples<\/b><\/p>\n
It is also essential to realize that nowhere in the Holy Scriptures do we find the slightest hint that a \u201cRock\u201d (such as that under the Dome of the Rock) was ever a part of the geographical features of any Temple from Solomon to Herod. On the contrary, the most significant feature of the Temple in any Biblical description was it being built over a \u201cthreshing floor\u201d(2 Sm 24:16, 18, 24). All \u201cthreshing floors\u201d (as even the English rendering states and the Hebrew demands) were \u201cfloors\u201d (that is, they were leveled areas like normal floors made by man that are usually of dirt or smooth manufactured stone or timber).Threshing floors were not jagged and rugged natural outcropping of rock).3 No one should think of the top part of a rugged Outcropping of rock as a level floor<\/i>.<\/p>\n
There is another disqualification. Solomon\u2019s Holy of Holies and also the Altar of Burnt Offering were not located over a permanent outcropping of rock. The Temples and their courtyards were expanded and were made progressively larger over the centuries. The Holy of Holies was relocated further north each time the Temple platform was extended. While all ground features of the Temple courts remained static, buildings and Temple furniture on top of the expanded platform moved progressively northward at each extension. Note that Solomon\u2019s Temple was about 30 m (100 ft) wide from north to south with the Holy of Holies in the center of that width. But we are informed that the Temple in Alexander the Great\u2019s day was 46 m (150 ft) wide with the Holy of Holies evenly spaced between the north and south walls (Josephus. Ag Ap<\/i> 1.22). Yet the Temple just before Herod\u2019s time became 90 m (300 ft) wide with the Holy of Holies again evenly spaced between the north and south walls. We know this because Josephus, as an eyewitness, described Herod\u2019s Temple as a precise square of 180 m (600 ft) on each side, and that Herod had doubled the size of the Temple by tearing down its north wall and repositioning it 90 m (300 ft) further north (JW<\/i> 5.5.1). This made the outer walls of Herod\u2019s Temple (in its final shape) to be a perfect square of 180 m (600 ft) on each side.<\/p>\n
Threshing floor near Bethlehem. Dr. Martin points out that threshing floors in the Holy Land are flat, like this one in the foreground of the picture.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 115<\/p>\n
Why Later People Selected the Haram esh-Sharif as the Place of Solomon\u2019s Temple<\/b><\/p>\n
The reason why people in the period of the Crusades accepted the region of the Haram esh-Sharif as the Temple site was because Omar took a portable stone from the remains of two Jewish attempts to rebuild the Temples at the correct site over the Gihon Spring. He brought that stone from those attempts to the Al Aksa Mosque he was beginning to construct.<\/p>\n
By applying a Muslim belief called bantka.<\/i> Muslims believed that if a stone from one Temple (or holy site) could be dislodged and taken to another place, the latter place would take on the same degree of holiness as the former spot. So, a portable stone found in !he ruins of the former Jewish Temples built in the times of Constantine and Julian was used by Omar for that purpose. That particular stone was consecrated to re-inaugurate \u201cSolomon\u2019s Temple.\u201d When Omar placed that stone in the holiest place of the Al Aksa Mosque at the southern end of the Haram esh-Sharif, Muslims could then (and from their point of view, legitimately) identify the site as being \u201cSolomon\u2019s Temple.\u201d Interestingly, when the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem they also began to call the Al Aksa Mosque by the Muslim designation, \u201cSolomon\u2019s Temple.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Jewish Authorities Finally Accept the Haram esh-Sharif as the Temple Site<\/b><\/p>\n
It was in the time of the Crusades (about AD 1165) that a Jewish merchant by the name of Benjamin of Tudela made a visit to Jerusalem. He was not a historian or theologian but he recorded in a chronicle what he saw and what he was told. When he heard the Christian and Muslim accounts that the Haram esh-Sharif was the location of the former Temples, Benjamin accepted their explanation (for the first time by any Jewish person). Benjamin did so without expressing the slightest historical criticism to justify such identification.<\/p>\n
It appears as though Jewish authorities up to the time of the Crusades knew that the Temples were built over the Gihon Spring on the southeast ridge and that the real \u201cTomb of David\u201d was in that southeast area. Indeed, it was on the proper southeast ridge that the Jews started to rebuild the Temples during the time of Constantine and Julian. And later, when Omar let 70 families of Jews settle in Jerusalem in AD 638 (immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims), the Jews stated categorically that they wanted to live near the ruins of their Temple. They said the ruins were \u201cin the south part of Jerusalem\u201d (that is, further south from the Haram esh-Sharif where Omar prayed and wanted to build his Mosque). Indeed, the Jewish authorities did not abandon the area around the Gihon Spring and its tributary waters of the Shiloah channel until the major earthquake of AD 1033 that destroyed the early Eudocian Wall constructed in the sixth century.<\/p>\n
How Josephus Described the Actual Temple He Saw<\/b><\/p>\n
There is another important observation that needs to be made. Josephus described the Temple as being a square (a precise square of one stadium length on each side, about 180 m [600 ft]) (JW<\/i> 5.522; 6.5.4 and Ant<\/i> 15.9.3). It had two colonnade roadways from the northwest corner of the Temple to the southwestern comer of Fort Antonia (JW<\/i> 2.15.16). These roadways were also a stadium in length. Combining the square lengths of the Temple with the two roadways that led to Fort Antonia. the length was six stades of 180 in (600 ft) each. The southeastern comer of the outer Temple walls was located directly over the very bottom of the Kidron Valley (the bedrock center) and extended upwards 300 cubits or 140 m (450 ft) (Ant<\/i> 8.3.9) where it reached the four-square platform on which the actual Temple with its various courts was located. The northeastern comer was also located within the depths of the Kidron though not quite as high as the southeastern corner.<\/p>\n
This made the four Temple walls to be a 180 m (600 ft) square TOWER (all sides were equidistant) like a 40 story skyscraper that extended upward with its southeast section of the wall within the deepest part of the Kidron.<\/p>\n
Let us now take those four square walls of the Temple (each 180 m [600 ft] in length) and transport them to center over the Dome of the Rock some 300 m (1000 ft) north of the Gihon Spring. The TOWER would indeed fit well into the enclosure known as the Haram esh-Sharif. But its southeast comer would NOT be located in the bottom of the Kidron Valley (it would be up on the level area of the Haram), nor would its northeast corner be precipitous and over the Kidron Valley as Josephus said. Indeed, if the Temple stood over the Dome of the Rock, the Temple platform on top of a 40-story skyscraper would have been higher than the top summit of the Mount of Olives. In no way was this the proper scenario. If, however, one will return the Temple and its dimensions (as Josephus gave them) to the Gihon Spring site, everything fits perfectly. What this shows is the fact that the walls around the Haram esh-Sharif are NOT those of the former Temple. They are those of Fort Antonia (which are not a square of 180 m [600 ft], but of much larger, over double,<\/i> dimensions and they are trapezium in shape). It also makes perfect sense that Titus would have wanted the Tenth Legion to be housed in this remaining fortress that survived the war that formerly overshadowed the Temple on its north side.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 116<\/p>\n
What happened to the stones of the Temple? All of the Temple and its walls were torn down to their foundations just as Jesus prophesied they would be. As a result of this fact, let us not get the two different buildings (Fort Antonia and the Temple) mixed up as all scholars and religious leaders have done since the time of the Crusades. The Haram esh-Sharif is NOT the site of the Temples.<\/p>\n
The Western (Wailing) Wall of the Jews<\/b><\/p>\n
The Wailing Wall as a Jewish holy place is a modem invention, selected for Jewish worship by Rabbi Luria. It was only sanctified in the last part of the 16th century\u2014only 430 years ago. So, in actual fact, the Jewish people today praying at the \u201cWestern Wall\u201d are NOT praying at a wall of their former Temples. Instead, they are sanctifying the western wall of Fort Antonia built by King Herod and taken over by the Romans as their prime fortress in Jerusalem in AD 6. This is occurring while the true site of their Temples lies forlorn and languishing in utter ruin and degradation in the Ophel part of the southeastern ridge. How ironic!<\/p>\n
The Western Wall and modern plaza. The Western Wall, often inappropriately called the \u201cWailing Wall,\u201d is seen in the background of this picture. This wall is considered by most archaeologists to be a portion of the western retaining wall that enclosed the Herodian Temple mount of Jesus\u2019 day. If such is the case, then this portion of the wall was immediately below the Temple. In this photo the round roof of the \u201cDome of the Rock,\u201d considered by most archaeologists as the location of the original Temple, can be seen in the left of the picture extending higher than the wall.<\/b><\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/b><\/p>\n
Danby, H.<\/b><\/p>\n
1933 The Misknah:<\/i> Trans, from Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n
Josephus<\/b><\/p>\n
1980 The Works of Josephus.<\/i> Trans. W. Whitson. Lynn MA: Hendrickson.<\/p>\n
BSpade<\/i> 14:4 (Fall 2001) p. 117<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Ernest L. Martin The following essay is an edited version of Dr. Ernest L. Martin \u2018s internet article in which summarizes the major arguments of his hook, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot. Dr. Martin postulates that the original site of the Temple was located over the Gihon Spring, not the traditional locution where the \u201cDome … Continue reading “NEW
\nEVIDENCE FOR THE REAL SITE OF THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM (ABRIDGED)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}