Table of Contents

1.THE TEMPLE WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN END

2.IN THE NEWS

THE TEMPLE WAS NOT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN END

by Michael Ben-Ari (translated by Yisrael Dubitsky) In general, I don't argue with those who seek the interest of the Temple Mount and the Temple, for the Rabbis have already explained the verse (Jer. 17:30) "This is Zion, for whom no one cares," as to imply that Zion does indeed require those to care about it and seek its welfare. As such, anyone who seeks, writes about and is involved and interested in Eretz Yisrael is to be commended, for he raises the Mount of the House of G-d, which is destroyed and captured, to the Jew's daily order of things, which is the goal for which we all strive these days. Despite this, I feel necessary to debate the theory of the archeologist Tuvyah Sagiv, as to the precise location of the Temple Mount, which he published recently in Techumin [14 (1994): 437-72 translator's note: It is quite worth it to read his well-reasoned article.] I do this for two reasons:

1. In my opinion, this theory is completely baseless, and I shall try to expand on this in great detail and in reasoned manner.

2. Those who stand opposite the Mount enjoy hearing views which explain his theory, and despite the theory being interesting and innovative, it is potentially dangerous. Until now, the various theories discussed the high elevation of the Temple Mount, and left a wide space for entrance to the Mount on its southern and northern ends, which is permitted according to all views. And now comes Sagiv and attempts to prove that "there is no way to know," for in his opinion, the location of the Temple was on the southern end of the Mount. Thus, today one must be wary of entrance to the Temple Mount at all. Indeed, in answer to the query why the Chief Rabbinate forbids entrance to the Temple Mount, the Office of the Chief Rabbinate relied on Sagiv's theory to "prove" and say "there is no way to know," and that there are "various opinions," etc.

A. The Principles of the Southern Side Theory of Sagiv

As a result of the question which Sagiv raises, some of which I will bring anon, he concludes that the Temple was lower that the height accepted by the other theories, and that the location of the Temple as we have placed it today, does not sit well with several sources. As a result, we must, according to him, place the Temple lower [than previously thought], towards the southern slopes of the Mount, directly opposite the place commonly referred to as the "Western Wall". Placing the Temple lower resolves the problems raised by Sagiv. This assumption, however, necessarily reduces the "cubit" to a minimal length, moves Antonia's Fortress ["Built on the site of an older castle...erected by John Hyrcanus...and named after Mark Antony."] closer to the Dome of the Rock, and erases the existence of Solomon's Stables and Huldah's gate, with which we are familiar, as well as Robinson's Arch. Thus, according to Sagiv, all parts of the southern wall were built in a later period, and Caesar Hadrian [117-138 CE] was the great builder of the Temple Mount, and not Herod [King of Judea 37-4 BCE], as archeologists had thought until now.

B. The Trustworthiness of Josephus and His Accuracy

Josephus Flavius (ca. 38-100 CE] served Sagiv as a resource for his theory that the Temple stood on the southern end of the Temple Mount. If one reads Sagiv's article, one realizes immediately that the made very extensive use of Josephus's descriptions and maps, and by relying on them, he comes to challenge the existing theories.

Here are two examples of the sources that Sagiv brings as proof to his theory:

1. "Agrippa's Gaze" (so Sagiv)

The following is Josephus's description:

"About this time, Kink Agrippa built a chamber of unusual size in his palace at Jerusalem adjoining the Colonnade. The palace had been erected long before by the sons of Asamonaios [i.e. Hasmoneans] and being situated on a lofty sight...The king was enamored of this view and used to gaze, as he reclined at meals there, on everything that went on in the temple. The eminent men of Jerusalem, seeing this, were extremely angry; for it was contrary to tradition for proceedings in the temple - and in particular the sacrifices - to be spied on. They therefore erected a high wall upon the arcade that was in the inner Temple facing west." [Jewish Antiquities, Book XX, 186-191 (Loab Classical Library)]

Sagiv argues that since no place high enough in the upper city (in the west) form which to have seen what went on in the Temple, this strengthens Josephus's claim that the Temple was lower than the kings palace. Thus, in his opinion, Josephus's description regarding Agrippa gazing on the forecourt, fits the topographical reality of the place.

2. The Height of the Antonia Tower

Josephus describes in the Jewish War [Book V, 238]:

"The tower of Antonia lay at the angle where two porticoes, the western and the northern, of the first court of the temple me; it was built upon a rock fifty cubits high and on all sides precipitous."

Sagiv argues that in the northwest] corner, in the very place identified by the best scholars of Jerusalem as the Tower of Antonia, there is no rock formation of that height, and that such a rock is found precisely atop the location of the Temple on the southern end. That is, in the place where today stands the Dome of the Rock.

And yet, one may not rely on the measurements of Josephus.

Many of the finest scholars and historians have already discussed the merits and faults of Josephus regarding the quality of his sources and copies and translations of his books form Latin to Greek and vice versa (after all, he didn't know everything based on firsthand knowledge, but rather used various dubious sources). And if we have found various versions in the Talmud as a result of changes in time, all the more so is the case with Josephus's book which was never studied as was the Talmud, and which is considered of less value according to everybody. Here are the words of two important historians regarding trustworthiness of Josephus's writings in general:

1. Prof. Michael Avi-Yonah ["Yerushalayim le-Doroteha," H-Kinus ha-artsi ha-25 li-yi'at ha-arets, Jerusalem 1969, p. 66ff.], writing about the trustworthiness of Josephus on another topic, says:

"In order to answer this question, we must first review Josephus's words themselves. One must concede that of all his many topographical errors, the facts he transmits regarding the third wall are perhaps his greatest sin. According to The Jewish Was (Book V, 152), Agrippa I [King of Judea 41-44 CE] stopped construction of the wall out of fear of the Romans after having laid the foundations; yet, according to that very treatise (Book II, 218) construction was stopped as a result of the sudden death of the king. In Jewish Antiquities (Book IXX, 328), we find a third rendition: Agrippa no only feared the Romans, but was actually ordered by Caesar Claudius [31-54 CE] to desist form the activities. Josephus's description of the line of the wall is outstanding in many ambiguities: what does "opposite" the kings' mean? And what exactly is "the length of" the caves of the kings? This description can be applied to any lines about which concern the argument."

2. Magen Broshi, an historian and scholar, writes the following in his recently published "Josephus: Historian of the Land of Israel" (Hebr.) (edited by Uriel Rapparport, Yad Yitzchak Ben Tzvi):

"Josephus's tendency to great hyperbole regarding population is known. Thus, for example, he transmits that the number of people living in the Galilee exceeding three million (The Jewish Was, Book III, 43) [and that] the number of casualties in Jerusalem - 1,100,000 (The Jewish War, Book VI, 420)."

Further on in the article, Broshi writes:

"Is Josephus always precise in what he says? Certainly not. His inaccuracies that may be classified extend from a description of the sources to substantial exaggerations. Cohen relates to Josephus "a negligence which cannot be improved." In Cohen's index, one hinds exact references to these cases of exaggeration, lack of consistency, negligence and distorted transmittal of names and numbers. Even were we to assume that there were many errors in his copies of books...his negligence cannot be denied. The list of scholars who defend Josephus on his inaccuracies is quite long."

Thus one may not prove anything from Josephus.

"Hyperbole," "inaccuracies," "distortions," "topographical errors," "negligence," "ambiguities" -- these are but a few of the "compliments" Josephus's works have received. With such compliments, it is quite easy for any sensible person to understand how difficult it is to rely on Flavius's descriptions of "Agrippa's gaze" or the height of Antonia, which was "fifty cubits steep on each of its sides" (such does not exist in the place identified by Sagiv.), and from those descriptions to make conjectures and assumptions and reach unreasonable conclusions, as Sagiv has done.

C. A Light Look at "Agippa's Gaze"

In order to contradict the proof form "Agrippa's Gaze," let us review once more the segment from Josephus:

"The eminent men of Jerusalem, seeing this, were extremely angry; for it was contrary to tradition for proceedings in the temple -- and in particular the sacrifices -- to be spied on."

Really? Was it not the tradition of our ancestors to see the sacrifices in action? Concerning Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the Mishnah says:

"...And before the cockcrow time drew near, the forecourt was already filled with Israelites." (Yoma 1:8)

And if the process of sacrifices was a matter of secrecy, how could they have allowed the forecourt to fill with "peepers," like Agrippa? One may suppose that the kernel of truth in Josephus's words was that Agrippa wanted to overlook the proceedings of the Temple out of fear that such assemblages might lead to rebellion. Therefore he glanced at the entering and departing, but certain angles of vision were indeed "dead" to his points of vision. And although we have no ideas as to the heights and angles, Sagiv determines decisively that it was not possible to see the goings-on in the Temple."

D. Another Look at the Height of the Antonia and Angles

Perhaps not by chance did Sagiv modify his style and not quote in his article from Josephus's description of the Antonia. For besides the height, the angles at which the Antonia was located were also mentioned there explicitly:

"The tower of Anotonia lay at the angle where two proticoes, the western and the northern, met."

Sagiv, who relies on Josephus, should have relied on him fully. And if the Antonia was in the northwest corner of the Mount, why does Sagiv place it in the northern side? Another astonishment: How does one know to count fifty cubits according to his theory? Perhaps one should count form the northwest slopes and then one will reach the proper height of the Antonia, as per the common theory? For it is well known that the Antonia defended the Temple during the Great Revolt. According to Sagiv, its location has a topographical disadvantage viz. a viz. the location commonly held in scholarly circles, which is the north-west side of the Temple Mount, and at its feet the wall slopes above bedrock. The rock and the wall above it may be seen from the edge of the Hasmonean Tunnel in the tunnels of the Western Wall.

What remains to consider is the worthiness of Sagiv's proofs and explications, especially regarding the aqueduct. This, please G-d, I intend to do on a forthcoming occasion.