Temple locations

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Kris
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Temple locations

Post by Kris » Wed May 10, 2017 2:02 pm

Not sure if this is the correct forum to post this, but I was looking at the internet today, and ran across a couple of different temple location ideas. Most seem to indicate that both the first and second temples of Jerusalem were built upon the Temple Mount, where the Dome of the Rock is sitting. However, there are a few other theories floating around that it was not on the Temple Mount but to the south, or even other locations. One big proponent of the southern location is a lady named Norma Robertson. She has an entire website, videos and even a small book dedicated to her theory. She also uses some of the work of Eliat Mazar to support her ideas. However, I am not able to find any information on her credentials. Has anyone heard of her? I included her link below for reference. Do most people feel that the Temple Mount is the correct location? Is Eliat Mazar wrong on her thoughts regarding Solomonic walls, etc? It seems like there is a lot of hype from certain groups but not wide support. I am also including an article that I found on Eliat Mazar promoting her "discoveries" in Jerusalem. I think that Israel Finkelstein has questioned a number of her finds--but she seems to have an agenda. Just curious what others in this forum think about these kinds of things.

I know that I am not the most prolific writer, nor am I a biblical expert so my posts may be rather sophomoric, but I really appreciate having somewhere to ask questions like this-- thanks so much for your time and consideration!


http://templemountlocation.com/

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/201 ... ew-heights

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 4999
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Temple locations

Post by Peter Kirby » Wed May 10, 2017 3:50 pm

Yeah, this is a good place to ask. And it's a good question.

I've moved this over to the Jewish subforum (with a link back from the Christian) so that it can have better visibility.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Kris
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Temple locations

Post by Kris » Thu May 11, 2017 8:22 am

Thanks Peter!

outhouse
Posts: 3481
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Temple locations

Post by outhouse » Thu May 11, 2017 2:25 pm

Kris wrote: She also uses some of the work of Eliat Mazar to support her ideas.
That alone qualifies her as nutty, Mazar is a biased nutjob.

Finkelstein rips her pretty hard and rightfully so. He is the only one with the correct hypothesis and conclusions that are not biased. His agenda is throwing out the trash.

If you look at Normas work it is based on guesses from photos and little else. Pass.
According to Mazar herself,


I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other, and I try to consider everything.[13]

Kris
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Temple locations

Post by Kris » Fri May 12, 2017 3:37 pm

But, is the general consensus that the temples were located on the Temple Mount? Isn't this what Josephus stated? Isn't this what most Jews believe? Why are there any disputes to the location?

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Temple locations

Post by DCHindley » Fri May 12, 2017 10:04 pm

Kris wrote:But, is the general consensus that the temples were located on the Temple Mount? Isn't this what Josephus stated? Isn't this what most Jews believe? Why are there any disputes to the location?
Pious legends arise over time, asserting things as fact because local legend said so. In Constantine's time, all sorts of things were claimed to be Jesus' manger, or the Upper Room, or Golgotha, etc. and since the area had been leveled to the foundations after 70 CE, the places would no longer be discernible, so landmarks built between 70 CE and the beginnings of the 4th century CE, were chosen arbitrarily to serve as substitutes.

"Solomon's Stables" were not built by Solomon, but by Crusaders. Why not also the "temple mount?" I think that a flat paved area was found outside of the Medieval boundaries of the City of Jerusalem and it has been suggested that this was the actual temple. I don't know. Unfortunately, we don't have a historian of Judaic matters like Josephus to describe in detail the events in Judea and Jerusalem from 74 CE to the mid 2nd century.

DCH

austendw
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Temple locations

Post by austendw » Sat May 13, 2017 2:53 am

DCHindley wrote:Why not also the "temple mount?" I think that a flat paved area was found outside of the Medieval boundaries of the City of Jerusalem and it has been suggested that this was the actual temple. I don't know. Unfortunately, we don't have a historian of Judaic matters like Josephus to describe in detail the events in Judea and Jerusalem from 74 CE to the mid 2nd century.
Well we don't have a historian like Josephus to describe the topography of the area after 74CE, but we do have Josephus, and the architectural/archaeological evidence to hand, and can make reasonable assumptions on the basis of that evidence. And all of that suggests that traditional reconstructions of Herod's temple, placing the sanctuary on or to the west of the rock enclosed within the Qubbat as-Sakhra are the right ones. Recent revisionistic relocations of the sanctuary to the north or south, and even further south of the Haram, fail to account for all this literary, archaeological, architectural and topographical evidence, so they can surely be dismissed.
Last edited by austendw on Sat May 13, 2017 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Call me Ishmael...

austendw
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:10 pm

Re: Temple locations

Post by austendw » Sat May 13, 2017 3:17 am

Kris wrote:But, is the general consensus that the temples were located on the Temple Mount? Isn't this what Josephus stated? Isn't this what most Jews believe? Why are there any disputes to the location?
Up until recently no-one doubted that either the Holy of Holies or the altar of the Herodian temple (and by extrapolation, the earlier temples on the site) were sited on the sakhra rock.

I suspect that, more recently, a desire to make millenial notions of a rebuilt "Third" Temple compatible with the existing Islamic structures - especially the Dome of the Rock - has encouraged newer theories, placing the Herodian sanctuary further north or south of this site. In other words, believers could envisage a rebuilt temple that didn't involved knocking down the Dome of the Rock. Whether that sort of desire does inform these theories is, in the end, irrelevant, however. What matters is the validity of the arguments they adduce, and in this area I think they are all deficient.

The particular example you link to is archaeogically nonsensical and entirely wrong-headed. Whether it relies on the excavations of Eilat Mazar (herself not beyond criticism) or not really doesn't change this.
Last edited by austendw on Sun May 14, 2017 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Call me Ishmael...

Kris
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Temple locations

Post by Kris » Sat May 13, 2017 7:01 am

Thanks so much for your input. It is very much appreciated.

Kris
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 5:48 am

Re: Temple locations

Post by Kris » Sat May 13, 2017 7:06 am

Austendw-- I hadn't heard of any theories of rhe temple being west of the rock-- who's theory is that? Would it require removal of the Islamic edifices to be built there? I was just curious.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests