Solomon Built the Lower
Aqueduct to the Temple Mount
By Norma Robertson
built the Temple of God
around 960 BC. Water was very important for the Temple to cleanse the
every evening of the blood of sacrifices. Many believe this water came
Gihon Spring. For this reason they place the Temple in the City
above that spring. This theory was created by Ernest Martin and
promoted by Bob Cornuke and claimed as the true location. This becomes
debate. Was the Temple in the City of David or on the Temple Mount?
article is not
about Herod's Temple which came later in time. This is about Solomon's
and the Hasmonean dynasty, as to which one built the lower
though the 2nd Temple was rebuilt by the Jews, returning from captivity
Babylon, and I could call it Zerubbabel’s Temple. I will just refer to
as Solomon's, because Solomon built the Temple on the threshing floor
location of the Temple never changed.
Who built the Lower Aqueduct from Etam
Spring, at Solomon's pools in Bethlehem,
all the way to the Temple Mount?
that believe the Temple
was built by Solomon in the City of David claim the Aqueduct was originally built
Hasmonean around 160 BC, after the Maccabean revolt ended. Then Israel
independence for a short time. The Hasmonean did build upon the
but they were not the original builders. Solomon was. I will prove this
maps and ruins, and sources. But also through pure common sense.
The lower aqueduct enters the Mount at
Wilson's arch, as seen in white on the map below. The Hasmonean also
built a fort at the north end of the Temple Mount to stop
northern invasions and called it Fort Baris. It replaced the Towers
there before this time. Remember we are not interested in Fort
right now. We are pre-Herod in this debate.
This map has Fort Baris at the north end of the Temple Mount and the
Solomon located in the City of David. In between these two
is where the
Lower Aqueduct enters the Temple Mount.
Fort Baris was connected to the Temple by an underground
let's look at the map again. If Fort Baris was on the north
wall of the
Temple Mount and the Temple was in the city of David then that is one
heck of a
long tunnel! Makes no sense. The army needed to be able to get to
I just know all he people that believe Solomon's Temple was in
the City of
David are thinking, "No. The whole Temple Mount was Fort Antonia. It is
or so feet from there to the Temple." To them I say please
Fort Antonia wouldn't be built for another 140 years, or so, by Herod.
All there was
before that was Fort Baris that was located on the north wall that
Fort Baris was not even close to the size of Fort Antonia.
question is, what was the purpose for the
aqueduct? (seen in white). Why would the Hasmonean
build it at such
great expense, and labor, if it didn't go to the Temple?? Nor did it go
uphill to Fort Baris. Was it built to bring water to nothing? Again it
sense. Not only that, but they built an elaborate system of smaller
channels from the aqueduct leading even farther toward the south, the
from Fort Barris. Huston we have a problem! According to the City
David theory there was nothing in this area in the time of
Solomon. There aren't even any water channels continuing down to
of David from the aqueduct. Evidently they think the aqueduct served no
The fact is, it was David's Palace that was built at the north end of
the City of David, above
the Gihon Springs, not the Temple. This site was excavated by Eilat
ruins of walls were found, none of which fit the shape of the
Temple. So the Temple couldn't have been in that same spot as Martin
Here is the order of the buildings that were south of Solomon's
Temple. Below Solomon's Temple was Solomon's Palace and royal
area, and south of that was David's Palace, which was at the north end
of the City of David. Let's see how that works out on the
map with the theory that the Temple was located in the City of David.
see in the map, that with the location of the Temple in the City
David, the size of the city becomes half it's known size. Again,
makes no sense.
In my work, I have found that Fort Baris was farther south than they
place it in the Dome of the Rock theory. A moat, that was
excavated by Charles Warren in the late 1800's, and shown on all his
north of the fort. Josephus writes that Fort Antonia was south of
moat. Fort Antonia was built to replace Fort Baris. Fort
Baris and Fort Antonia were built on the old Nehemiah wall,
that went along the north end of the Dome of the Rock Platform.
Once the fort is moved southward and the Temple is placed at Ophel
it becomes feasible that an underground tunnel went from the fort to
Temple. The Temple is fed by the aqueduct and the smaller water
go straight to the court to wash away the blood of the sacrifices.
Palace is against the Temple's south wall, right where Eilat Mazzar
and found the entrance to Solomon's Royal area.
the City of David now returns to
it's normal size when the Temple is on Ophel hill where it belongs.
With the Dome of the Rock Temple theory, and the City of
David Temple theory, a problem remains, when they claim the Hasmonean
built the aqueduct in 160 BC. In their theories the aqueduct
water to nothing.
fact should haunt them in the middle of the
night. It should make them question whether or not Solomon actually
aqueduct to bring water to his Temple. It is common sense that he did,
don't question it because it ruins their theories.
The True Location of
Solomon's and Herod's Temples
In my theory, Herod built Fort Antonia to replace Fort Baris and he
extended Solomon's Temple courts to the North, West and South.
This made the
Temple compound one
furlong by one furlong. 600 x 600 feet. Josephus included
Fort Antonia in with the Temple calling it a complex, both together
measured 6 furlong
when walking around the perimeter. In other words 600 X 1200 feet. This
places Fort Antonia as being
built on the Dome of the Rock platform.
Wilson's map overlaid Herod's Temple and Fort Antonia diagram.
As you can see Herod's Temple is way too big to fit above the Gihon Spring.
To see the sources for this article please visit