|Return Home||Solomon's Portico||Five Location Theories||Temple Water System
||Early Temple Illustration||Temple Mount Chronology
950 BC - 135 CE
|Herod's Courts||Maps of Early Explorers|
|Trumpeting Stone||Akra Found||Solomon Palace||Temple Mount Walls||Temple Diagrams||PowerPoint
|Red Heifer Bridge||Bob Cornuke Disputed|
1. Location over the Gihon Springs.
recognize this drawing as Dr. Martin's theory, and is also what Bob
claims to be correct.
I rotated in it's proper proportions so the image will fit correctly over Charles Wilson's survey map.
Charles Wilson map with overlay of archeology excavation map, and Martin's location map.
Eilat Mazar uncovered
a huge building in
the area in red. To view
original map see
I placed Dr. Martin's rotated drawing with his 600 x 600 feet Temple area over the map of the City of David excavations. Again, take note of the location of Eilat Mazar's excavation area.
will find it directly
Temple in Martin's drawing.
King David's Royal Palace............
The building has been proved to have existed in the time of King David according to the artifacts found in the layers of dirt of the excavation. As you can see it is in the same place that Dr. Martin and Bob Cornuke claim Herod's Temple House was located. This royal building is definitely not ruins of the Temple and yet stood in this place before and after the Temple was built. They both couldn't have existed at the same time in the same place. In fact the altar, which was built on the threshing floor, is over the edge of the cliff! No threshing floor to be seen, just the Stepped Stone Structure. Stepped Stone Structure
proves that Ernest L Martin's and Robert Cornuke's
of placing the temple in the City of David as Completely Wrong and has
The work of Dr. Eilat Mazar and her team has been published in several volumes and has been peer reviewed for years now. In fact, the archaeological, along with scriptural, evidence is so strong for it being David;s Palace that it really can’t be disputed. In comparison, Martin and Cornuke have ZERO archaeological evidence to support their THEORY. Archaeological facts vs Martin and Cornuke’s theory….Which would you rather believe?
Need I mention that not one wall of the Temple was left on top of
another. Lots of walls left
standing at the dig site of David's Palace, as you can see in the
David's Palace NW corner Looking West at large wall.
These ruins do not resemble the Temple in any way. In fact with the recent digs in this area we can easily see that there was no room for a Temple anywhere in the City of David.
2. The water for the Temple was supplied from the Gihon Spring.
Bob Cornuke claims that the only water source for the Temple was the Gihon spring and yet Jewish literature tells us this is not so.
says that "a
from Atan (Etam)
is true then it has
always been the aqueduct bringing water to wash the court from day one
Temple being built. Logic tells us this. The
aqueduct was rebuilt in later times by the Hasmoneans,
* and in the Jer. Talmud (Yoma' 3 fol 41) Talmud (Zebhachim 54b), http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/E/ETAM/
(2) "How is the Azara (Temple court) cleaned? Seal the area and let the water from the aqueduct enter till it becomes clean like milk."
*Tosefta Pesachim, Ch. 3,12. *Tuvia Sagiv http://www.templemount.org/tuviatemple.pdf
(3) The Mishna also tells us that the water for filling the copper laver each day was "brought by a conduit from the pools of Bethlehem".
I have added a new short video called Water on the Temple Mount which covers the water system on the Mount and speaks of the Trumpeting Stone.
Dr. Martin, and those that use his work, claim that the 10th legion was housed on the Temple Mount and claims Pontius Pilate built "THE" aqueduct to bring water to the fort, however he combined two branches of the aqueduct system to come up with his theory, the Arrub aqueduct built by Pontius Pilate feeding the Solomon Pools and the Upper aqueduct which was built to bring water to the Upper City most likely filling “Hezekiah’s Pool”. This was the Upper aqueduct not the Lower aqueduct. For more information on the upper aqueduct and Solomon's Pools, see Aqueducts map.
Of course, from the sources I quoted above, i.e. "Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma' 3 fol 41) says that *a conduit ran from Atan (Etam) to the Temple" then the Temple court was cleansed by the water from spring Etam by means of the Lower Aqueduct, from the first day the Temple was completed . It is the oldest of all the aqueducts.
Some try to date the Lower aqueduct to the time of the Hasmoneans, 2nd century BC, having found plaster and some old coins that are Hasmonean, but I, and others, believe they merely repaired sections of this ancient aqueduct. Logic, and the sources, tell us Solomon was the one that originally built the Lower aqueduct when he built the Temple. Fact is if the Temple was always on the Temple Mount..... then the water for it always came from Etam Spring. The aqueduct after entering the temple mount runs down hill to the el Kas fountain. Just south of the fountain are many water channels that fit the layout of the Temple.
So don't be fooled by someone telling you that Gihon was the only spring that could supply water to the the Temple, or that the lower aqueduct was built by the Hasmonean, or Pontius Pilate or Herod. This aqueduct has been rebuilt over time but we are only interested in the original builder.
3. No stone would be left upon another, including retaining walls.
Have you heard that according to the Prophecy of Jesus that not one wall of the Temple Mount would remain? >
This idea comes from a misreading of the Olivet Discourse. Jesus wasn't speaking about the walls when he gave the prophecy. He was speaking of the buildings that the apostles were pointing out to Him, showing Him how beautiful the building (Herod's) were.
They were walking away from the Temple, going up to their camp on the Mount of Olives. They would have to be part way up before they could see over the old East wall and view these beautiful new buildings of Herod's. The East Wall was very old, being that Herod didn't let his builders rebuild it so they wouldn't’t have been referring to it at all.
The "not one stone upon another" is speaking of the new Temple and new temple buildings of the chambers of the temple court, Nicanor gate, and women’s court, but not of the walls. Just as when earlier Jesus had wept over Jerusalem saying she would be laid even with the ground and not one stone left upon another. And Yet the Romans left three towers and the wall they were on still standing to show the world how strong a city they had defeated. So Jesus was not referring to walls in either.
So my question to Bob Cornuke would be, Which walls would Jesus have been talking about IF he had said anything about the walls in the first place?
4. The Temple Mount was Fort Antonia.
Was the Whole Temple Mount Fort Antonia? According to Josephus Fort Antonia was approxamatly 600 feet square and the Temple was immediately to the south of that, and connected to it, and was also 600 feet square. He tells us that the two together measured 6 furlong around 600 x 1200 ft. (Josephus "The Wars of the Jews", Book 5, Ch 5, 2. ...while the entire compass of it was by measure six furlongs, including the tower of Antonia; those entire courts that were exposed to the air were laid with stones of all sorts.)
This tells us the Temple and Fort Antonia together only took up a small portion of the Temple Mount we see today. Not the whole Temple Mount. He also wrote that Fort Antonia was on the highest part of the hill, which is the Dome of the Rock platform. The Temple was not on the highest point of the hill, but was below it between Fort Antonia and the City of David.
5. The Temple was within the City of David.
claims the scriptures point only to a Temple within the City of
All the Temple theorist use the same scripture to prove
In the beginning the ark of the Covenant was brought to the
City of David
so The city was called the strong hold, Zion. However when Solomon
Temple we read;
In which they placed the ark in the Temple built by Solomon.
From that point on the Temple was included in the scripture when referring to Zion, the stronghold. Can anyone really believe that the place where the ark then dwelt, and so God dwelt, was not called Zion?
I go on? Bob Cornuke is not accounting for the
growth of Zion to the
north to include Mount Moriah when the Temple was built and the ark
into it. So don't be fooled by one person claiming scriptures
theory. It points to all the theories.
In addition to these
things, Bob Cornuke, Dr
Martin and also Ken
Klien, do NOT mention the
place the Trumpeting stone,
for good reason because it completly undoes the City of
According to the Jews and Josephus the Place of the
located within the Temple. A stone with the words "to the
the Trumpeting" with a nook cut into the huge stone for the priest to
stand in while blowing the shofar was found below the southwest corner
Temple Mount. At cracked the pavement when it was thrown down, to the
century street, which means it had not been moved. This
indisputable proof that the southwest corner of the Temple
Mount was part
of the Temple of Herod.
Concerning the (possible) place of sacrifice found in the City of David, this would have been a low place within the City, (according to its location), and not a high place. The Temple was built on a high place, (the threshing floor). Because of this there is a possibility that this may have been a place of sacrificing to for the foreign wives to make sacrifices to their gods. Threshing floors were never within a city because of the chaff that blew in the wind. And threshing floors, to catch the wind, were always on a high place.
Can all these sources be wrong? These are historical facts the Jews know, but many Christians don't know. The Christians are more concerned with hoping for a place the Jews could build a third Temple without causing war than they are about these historical facts. Dr Martin had an agenda to find a place where the Temple could be rebuilt without causing a war with the Muslims, and he either ignores, or blatantly changes, what is said in both the scriptures, the Mishna, and by Josephus, to force his location. But the Jews will not be swayed by the Christians to build their Temple any other place than the threshing floor which they believe is on the Temple Mount according to all their historical sources.
In my temple theory the Temple was located north of the City of David. This location supports not only the Solomon's Palace complex to be south of the Temple, where scripture tells us it was, but also the north of the Akra but close enough for a person to be able to see into the Temple complex from the towers of the Akra Fort, as per Josephus and the Maccabees. And is, of course, north of David's palace, as describes in the scriptures.
My Temple Diagram showing both the Tempe complex and Fort Antonia compound, overlayed on both Warren's Temple Mount map and then overlaid on Wilson's topographical map. So three layers altogether.
Solomon's Temple" now on Video!