Replies

Thank you.

Almost all of the non-Israeli Archaelogists went out of their way to disprove any jewishness of the site. It's interesting that this guy quotes Josephus selectively, as this is how the typical Archaelogist researches. For the most part, most Archaeologists discount Josephus unless he supports their own stupid theories.

Actually, I had formed no opinion of Dr. Martin myelf. I read the article, he never seemd to get to the punch line - a teaser to get his book sold I assume.

I believe all of Israel belongs to the Jews, including Gaza, West Bank, all of Jerusalem and there is no such thing as a "Palestinian". I do recognize there are people who try to revise history. I'm not one of them. I didn't read enough in Dr. Martin's article to conclude he is. But honestly, I might not know until it became blatant.

My question is solely related to a factual identification of where the Herodian Temple stood. To that end, I though Dr. Marten was leading up to an argument that the Herodian Temple was destroyed as was Jerusalem, and all that was left was the Antonia Fortress.

The punchline I was waiting for, but the article broke off, was Titus and Josephus spoke/wrote their accounts as they viewed the damage from the Antonia Fortress. That's why the Antonia Fortress wasn't mentioned but still stands (it was under their feet and taken for granted as standing), and the Temple and the city was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.

On a related matter, what is your opinion of Tuvia Sagivat's hypothesis of The Southern Conjecture? He seemingly has a rather well researched theory that the Temple perhaps stood on the southern end of the mount, south of the Dome, but just north of the mosque? Seemingly in the stepped-down court yard between where Dr. Martin has the fort and Temple.

Actually Dr. Martin's belief is that the original site of Solomon's Temple was over the Gihon Spring, the only source of fresh water in Jerusalem. This was just south of the current accepted site. The early sacrificial nature of the Temple would have needed a ready source of water which the Gihon would have supplied. It would not have made sense to build it just north of this source of water when they could have built it over the source of water. Dr. Martin gives historical evidence of writings evidencing a steady source of water in the Temples while they were in use, by contemporaries.

He also is of the belief that the current accepted site was actually Fortress Antonia which housed the Roman Tenth Legion. The Legion itself stayed in the Jerusalem area until the fourth century and it is Dr. Martin's contention that it was housed at this location. This is the reason that these four walls are still standing - it was Roman property not Jewish territory.

The totality of Israel is the Promised Land that God gave to his people. The Moslems have no claim to any of it. Why, however, the Israelis gave autonomy over their most sacred site to the Moslems is something that I cannot answer. The corner stone for a restored Temple has already been cut, the implements for worship already forged. Each year the corner stone is taken out, paraded around the "Temple Mount" and put back in storage. If it is possible to rebuild the Temple over the site of the original Temples then this theory deserves a serious appraisal. Dr. Martin's book is well researched, giving historical, scriptural, and archaeological evidence to support his theory. The article that is currently being discussed can by no means thoroughly preview this wonderful book.

My own personal opinion is that the Temple Stood just to the north of the Dome of the Rock. When I went in the excavation under the Temple Mount (in 1987), the Doorway that led to where the Israelis thought was the sight of the Holy of Holies was about 40 yards to the North of the edge of the dome. The doorway arch has since been covered over and made to look like it had been sealed for 2000 years (since they allow tours along the catacomb arches of the Western Wall and you can see the arch of the entry.) The reason they did this was that they didn't want people to know that they were excavating under the Mount. If you recall, the place where the Temple was built actually was where Abraham caught the goat in the thicket, which was on the side of the Mountain, not at the top. Exact reproductions of all of the tools needed to re-institute temple worship have been made (see the website http://www.templeinstitute.org/). I have seen these--they are available to be seen in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (about 300 yards to the West of the Kotel (Western Wall.) They are just waiting to find a spotless red heifer (read Numbers 19.) Several candidates have been observed in the last 5 years, but none of them have been proven acceptable for Temple worship.) In answer to your question concerning the Southern Conjecture, the location could not have been to the south of Mount Moriah (where the Dome is)--the reason is that that is where Solomon's Stables were located, and the Temple could not have been built on or near where Horse Dung existed.