Mount Moriah or the City of David?
Locating the true site of the Jewish Temple...and why some people got it wrong For years scholars have argued about the precise location of the first and second Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, almost all archaeologists agree they were situated at or near the Muslim Dome of the Rock. Recently, however, a popular book claims the Temples never stood on the Temple MouGet More Articles—Subscribe Today!
New Digital & Archive Subscription Options!
Digital Subscriptions are only $9.99/year. Digital + Archive Subscriptions are only $19.99/year.
First-time digital subscriber? Get a FREE, one-year trial at foi.org/digital!
Please send me this info.
All so fascinating but the whole article is one sided Bob builds a very strong case which leads me in the direction of the City of David as the true location fascinating read though thank you enjoyed it
Hello Everyone,
This is fascinating reading. I never even knew there was a debate about the site of the temple. I do have a weird question though. Where was the Roman barracks or palace (depending on the translation version)? The reason I ask is that in Acts 21 when the people want to kill Paul they drag him out of the temple and shut the gates. Then when the Romans hear about the incident Acts records that the Romans ran “down” to the crowd. When Paul is arrested the Romans have carry him to the stairs (because of the angry crowd), and once on the stairs Paul speaks to the crowd. I have assumed that the stairs were going “up” from the temple as that would be a vantage point for speaking to a crowd. Where was this Roman barracks or palace located? Was it really higher than the temple (which would be a vantage point for the Romans and completely understandable militarily)? And if the barracks were higher than the temple, were they destroyed at one point? I have looked on the internet at photos of Jerusalem but I cannot see anything higher than the temple mount. Now I am very curious!!!! God Bless you all. Warm Regards.
My question is…. if the location of the temple is so vital to the redemption of the Jewish people, why would they allow (without a revolt like in the past) for the Muslims who were their enemy, why would the Jewish people allow the Muslims to take this most sacred place??? It would seem that if the temple was where the Dome is now, there would have been some evidence of resistance?
The Byzantines recognized the identity of the Haram esh-Sharif as the Roman camp, calling it the “praetorium” or “hall of Pilate” in several pilgrimage accounts. With the advent of the Crusaders, the Haram esh-Sharif became the site of Solomon’s temple, so ignorant were they of the existence of Herod’s temple. Their identification took hold and has continued ever since. The use of the term “Mount Moriah” began with Fetullus in the Crusader era, while Mount Zion, which had become lost, along with temple, was the true site of the temples. Please consult “The Byzantine Presence on the Temple Mount” on Academia.edu to read the accounts which reveal two Christian churches once stood on the Haram. There are also other papers on Academia which give multitudinous sources regarding the City of David site for the temple. Marilyn Sams (author of The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth)
Just read 2nd Chronicles and accept it as truth. The Temple was on Mount Moriah.
And how do you know where mount moriah was? The jews lost the entire city of david until 150 years ago. They had no idea where anything was, let alone the temple, except perhaps fort antonio.
Dr Price, with respect you seem to be parroting the Ritmeyer conventional line which, in my view becomes more untenable by the day. Marilyn Sams in her book (‘The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth’) is convincing and persuasive with many ancient references. In my own book ‘THE PLACE HaMakom; where Jerusalem’s Temples Stood’ my main contention is that there MUST be ‘living water’ at the site for it to meet God’s typological requirements. HaMakom was a name used by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jeremiah and even John as The ancient nickname for the sacred site and the temple. IAN HEARD, Sydney, Australia http://www.until-we-see.com
Hi Ian,
You may have written a book about this. But if you lack the right direction you are sure to end up on the wrong side. Take a look at these examples before going into the temple location issue.
The Bible said that the world is round or a circle. Isaiah 40:22. But until Magellan’s journey people had their own fantasies. The Bible said that the earth is suspended on nothing or hangs in the air. Job 26:7. But scholars made their own theories. The Bible said that the life of flesh is in the blood. Leviticus 17:11. But medical world did not recognize this until the beginning of 20th century.
Every time when people formed their own theories against what is mentioned in the scriptures, we see the same result – people fail and scripture wins. Yet it is the nature of man to reinforce the quote of Georg Hegel – “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”
You may give any number of ancient references and form your theory. But it has to align with the scriptures. The scripture is the ultimate test and your theory will win if you align with the scripture.
The source of the concept of “living waters” for the Temple is not scriptural. Nowhere in Bible we read so. We have sources as early as 4th century BC talking about the water channels that brought water to the Temple. The letter of Aristeas gives us solid proof that the aqueduct was fuly operational before 278 BC. This proves that the Hasmoneans or the Romans were not the first to build the aqueducts.
The concept of living waters was intoduced by Ernst Martin and no other ancient source tells so. There cannot be any other ancient literature supporting this because Solomon did not use living waters.
Now looking at the Bible and what it tells us about the Temple location. we get lot of clues. We can pretend to close our eyes and want to miss these clear landmarks if we want to. The first one is the threshing floor. All Biblical scholars agree on the boundaries of the city of David during David’s time. And not just the Bible, but history tells us that threshing floors are never inside a city. The Temple mount area was outside the city of David at the time of David and this threshing floor was located at the southern most end of what is known as Mount. Moriah. The Bible gives the 2nd clue with a verse in 2 Chronicles 3:1 that the Temple was built on Mount Moriah. God knew 2000 years later people like Ernst Martin and Bob Cornuke will come to confuse the people. So he kept this verse.
Thirdly, even a simple calculation of area will tell that the Temple will not fit into the narrow city of David. If you were to place the Temple there it will be jutting out into the valley of Kidron. It doesn’t simply fit. Next, there are no archaeological evidences that the Temple was in the city of David. The recent discovery of a garbage dump of the eastern slopes of the city of David destroys all the theory of placing the temple in the city of David. MAny more such discoveries will continue to come up because there is only one truth.
Fourthly, there is an elevation map that is clearly visible when we read the bible. David asked his son to be taken “down” to the Gihon spring for his coronation(1 Kings 1: 33). This tells us that David’s palace in the city of David was at a higher elevation than the gihon spring. When Solomon became king, he built a palace for himself. This was not present inside the city the David as it was already fully occupied and fully built. Therefore, Solomon built his palace in Ophel area. We have archaelogical discoveries supporting this. Now we read from 2 Chronicles 9:4 that Solomon used an ascent (stairway) to go “up” to the Temple of God. This also aligns well with 2 Chronicles 5:2 in which Solomon brings “up” the ark out of the city of David into the Temple of God to place it in its location. Where does all these clues lead us to? Clearly, we land up on the southern end of the Temple Mount.
Whatever Randell tells here aligns with the truth and it is your theory that is not aligning with the facts. In 1967, they discovered the Trumpeting stone mentioned by Josephus. It stayed put in its place where it fell in 70 AD. That was another proving point. The discovery of Akra in the Givati parking lot is another piece that fits in. We know during the Maccabean revolt there stood a tower/fort to the south of the Temple. Now they have discovered this Akra in the Givati parking. This also proves that the Temple stood north of this place.
You said,
“Therefore, Solomon built his palace in Ophel area. We have archaelogical
discoveries supporting this. Now we read from 2 Chronicles 9:4 that
Solomon used an ascent (stairway) to go “up” to the Temple of God. ”
2 Chron. 9:4 says:
“the food of his table, the seating of his officials, and the attendance of
his servants, and their clothing, his cupbearers, and their clothing, and
his burnt offerings that he offered at the house of the LORD, there was
no more breath in her.”
I don’t see anything mentioning “ascent (stairway) to go “up” to the Temple of God” in this verse. This doesn’t seem to address what you are saying. Are you sure you gave the correct verse reference ??
Be Well, DZ
Try here Douglas —-> https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_chronicles/9-4.htm
Agreed! The Bible has proven to be absolutely true over and over. All remarks concerning the Temple in Scripture demand it be on mount Moriah. All the bits of evidence that men produce from other sources are pure conjecture. You can’t read 2nd Chronicles and come to any other conclusion. The Temple was on Mount Moriah. And when the third one is built in preparation for Jesus it will be there also. Just wait and see.🙏👍❤
There is absolutely zero proof that the trumpeting stone “stayed put”. Have you been standing guard over it for the last 2000 years? Or is it just bc you say so?
Dear Sir,
I would like to respond to your first (and best) argument that it seems absurd that the Jews could have lost their Temple. Perhaps they have, or perhaps not. In a nutshell,
1. The true Temple Mount, Ornan’s old threshing floor, may be seen at Ammunition Hill.
2. The true Old City and citadel, also long gone, once stood atop Mt Scopus, which is the only position of military advantage in the area.
3. The Well of Souls, now enclosed beneath the Dome of the Rock, is the tomb of Christ. The Wikipedia has some dandy photos of the space, which is about the size of your livingroom. The Haram is the work of Constantine, who built the platform (and the original Church of the Holy Sepulchre) to establish the Well as the Lord’s empty grave.
So, why do the Jews pray at the Wall? I suspect that it is because Constantine carted stone all the way down from the destroyed Temple at Ammunition Hill (a full mile north) to build his platform and his church. And what would have been more holy to the Jews, the physical location, or the consecrated rubble from the debacle of AD70?
If it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it, too, then the Jews are right, much more than the Mohammedans, in their claims to the spot. But the irony is inescapable, that they are all fighting over access to the family crypt of Joseph of Arimathea.
Great article. Unfortunately I bought his books, and was excited about the possibility of no longer needing to be built where the Dome of the Rock currently is. Big bummer.
I am not convinced it is for believers to enter into a search for the place God has chosen for the Temple past or future..but I would have to say I am far more persuaded by Robert Cornuke’s Argument than this pure rebuttal. We must go against the traditions of man to find the truth of any matter. As a woman I will not teach any matter of scripture to men of God, therefore rightly dividing the word of truth will always bring blessing.
Why would you not teach any matter of Scripture to men of God, you are a woman of God are you not?
The Holy of Holies must line up with the Eastern Gate. That means the temple can be rebuilt to the north of the Dome. The entire temple will not fit there because of the Dome, but that lines up with Scripture perfectly when the Bible indicates that the outer court must be left off. The area north of the Dome is where water channels run to provide water to the temple and it will be in line with the eastern gate. The Dome doesn’t have to be destroyed after all.