Temple mount too high to be site of Temple?

[Admin1]

I cannot recall the name of the archaeologist who proposes this, but he suggests that the temple mount is too high to be the site of the Temple...that there would not have been a way to get water, in the required quantity, there.

He proposed that it is below the temple mount in an area where there are currently trees.

In the special I saw he referenced ground penetrating radar that supports his theory.

Are any reputable archaeologists or scholars accepting this theory?

[bluejeans]

see
http://www.templemount.org/

very interesting- I was looking into this the other day - there are some fabulous tech advances they are using to see beneath the dome of the rock

the scholarly and reputable dont have a total franchise  on truth
 they sure didnt recognize Christ when He came
 bj

[JohnStevenson]

I cannot recall the name of the archaeologist who proposes this, but he suggests that the temple mount is too high to be the site of the Temple

I cannot see why this would be an issue.  In his description of the courts of the temple, Josephus says that the lowest part of this was erected to the height of three hundred cubits, and in some places more (Wars 5:1).  Furthermore, any attempt to turn the temple mount into the Antonia fortress would have to explain why the fortress would have extensive mikvot baths built into its southern entrance.

[ssis]

I would think that Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer's book "Secrets of the Temple Mount" would have long settled the issue. Get with it folks!

[Admin1]

For those of us that have not read Ritmeyer, what is her opinion on it? 

[ssis]

Leen Ritmeyer is a DutchMAN. He is an architect who, in 1973 was attached to the mammoth archaeological excavation  south of the Temple Mount, begun in 1967, by Professor Benjamin Mazar of Hebrew University. In 1992 he earned his doctorate in Archaeology at the University of Manchester. He is the world's leading expert on the archaeology of the Temple Mountand his book is available at BAS.

[Admin1]

Leen Ritmeyer is a DutchMAN.

oops 

...so does he believe that the Temple was on the mount where most others think it was?

[ssis]

Not only that-but he believe's his Scholarship has allowed him to pinpoint where the Holy of Holies stood. He identifies CURRENT on-site evidence with what purpose they served at the time.

[raysir]

A gentleman by the name of Ernest L Martin has written a book titled "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot".  This is the work that inspired the first question in this thread.  I found the book on line after seeing a DVD of Jim Tabor making a presentation on the theory.  Tabor did not claim to buy into the theory, he just made a presentaion of it.  I have now read the book and think Mr Martin makes a strong case.  He does not address the ritual baths in this book.  I don't know how he explains them.  The book was published in 2000 and does not seem to have taken the archaeological world by storm.  I have also wondered how Ronnie Riech and his partner in the dig relate their "Spring House" to Mr. Martin's Theory.  If you want a bit more info you might try Associates for Scriptural Knowledge.

[GihonSpring]

Prof. George Wesley Buchanan (presently working on his own book supporting the Gihon Spring location of the Jerusalem Temples) supports Ernest L Martin's location of the Temples.  See 2 of his 3 Expository Times articles** on this subject, from the links at:-
Further Support for Dr. Martin's Temple Evidence
                                      n050117.htm
                                      n030425.htm

**1. "The Tower of Siloam" in Expository Times, vol 115 No 2 (Nov 2003):pp 37-45.
    2.  "Running Water at the Temple of Zion", in Expository Times, vol 115 No 9 (June 2004): pp 289-292.
    3.  "The Area of the Temple at Zion", in Expository Times, vol 116 (March 2005): pp 181-189.

    A paper was presented to the Near East Archaeological Society in November 2007 in San Diego.  Prof. George Wesley Buchanan & I (David Sielaff) requested a joint or a tandem presentation. On November 15, his talk was “The True Location of the Temple of Zion”, which presented his own research that parallels, reinforces, & acknowledges Dr. Martin’s Temple research, that the Temples were all constructed above & west of the Gihon Springs.  Following my presentation, Leen Ritmeyer, an outspoken critic of Dr. Martin’s & Prof. Buchanan’s historical evidence, gave an overview of his 40 years of Temple research. It was an interesting day.

    Finally, for the full texts of an exchange of views between Ernest Martin & Leen Ritmeyer, follow the links at:- A Critique by Dr. Leen Ritmeyer and a Rebuttal by Dr. Ernest L. Martin


 

[serapha]

Leen Ritmeyer is a DutchMAN.

oops 

...so does he believe that the Temple was on the mount where most others think it was?

Hi there...

Dr Leen Ritmeyer’s blog  

Ritmeyer Archaeological Design


There are two photographs which are copyrighted to Leen Ritmeyer that have become quite famous. 

The first is a photo taken inside the Dome of the Rock where he shows where the ark of the covenant sat.   There is an impression in the rock that has the exact dimensions of the ark given in the biblical text.

The second photograph is where he uncovered a step to the Temple, and immediately when this was published, the step was covered so there could be no evidences of a Jewish temple having ever been on the Temple Mount.   

I think that there are articles in the archives of BAR on both these ...

BAR Jan/Feb 1996
"The Ark of the Covenant: Where It Stood in Solomon's Temple"

Or read about it here...

Where has the lost Ark of the Covenant been? - ChristianAnswers.Net


~serapha~

[fishkiller]

Concerning the issue of was the temple located on the traditional site in Jerusalem, one need only look to the past practices of the surrounding cultures in the area. The most visable spot  is nearly always chosen. Why? To convey the mind set of the people that lived in the area. They nearly always wanted  other cultures to see the power in which they placed they're very existance. In this case of course, it is the Living God of Hebrews. To suggest that this large flat area, that has been prepared for a building and practice such as the Jews practiced, and still want to practice, was prepared for anything but a large scale worship area, given the contect, would be completely rediculous. Josephus states that it could be seen glittering from miles away and that it was the envy of all that came to Jerusalem, even so far as to, If  my memory serves, to out do the buildings of Rome it self. No, I think that all indicators are pointing toward the site that the Muslims have thier building erected upon. And it will be interesting to see what happens to the site, if say a earth quake should level the current structure one day. Will the Jews rush to the mount and claim it? If they ever expect to regain the site, they will have to do it then, what ever it is that destroys the present structure. All in all that will be a interesting time to be alive. The God of Isreal, His chosen vessel, the Jews, and the power of the Islamic masses will colide on that day, I will be alive,  but my address may change drastically. In any event as always it will be a very bumpy ride!

[archaeologist]

i am thinking of joinging this discussion but would need to look for a couple links to back up a possible theory.

as for now here is an interview for food for thought:

http://info.jpost.com/C004/QandA/qa.templemount.html

Joseph Abraham, London: Is it true the Muslims built their Dome over the wrong rock? I understand that the Holy of Holies was built on a different rock on the Temple Mount.

Dr. Mazar: It’s not the wrong rock, because at present it is on the highest spot on Mount Moriah, which is probably the same spot where the temple stood. Muslims believe that Mohammad went to a place that is called "extreme," and they relate this extreme place to be the location of the Al-Aksa Mosque, which was never claimed to be the spot of the temple itself.

Geoff Neilson, Cape Town, South Africa: Is there any specific location where the altar for sacrifices must be? Do we know the precise point of that location today?

Dr. Mazar: The location of the altar near the temple itself can be located in the most probable way — where we all locate the temple itself — but to pinpoint exactly where it stood is disputed. It’s unlikely that this dispute will be resolved as long as excavations are prohibited inside the Temple Mount compound.

[romad]

I used to be a member here but they dropped me for inactivity it seems.

Anyway, I posted a question similar to this thread a year or so ago. After reading a description of the Antonia Fortress, I couldn't believe that the one pictured as a small building on the "Temple Mount" could hold an entire Roman Legion. I also wondered what the mysterious "Stepped Stone Structure" was to the south.

A gentleman called me and told me about Dr. Martin's book. The book seemed to answer both questions I had. Further reading of different books and articles related to the subject has convinced me that my belief and that of Dr. Martin are correct. After reading Leen Ritmeyer's "critique" of Dr. Martin's book, all I can say is: "Methinks thou doth protest too much"

[JohnStevenson]

My own correspondence with Ernest Martin has found him to be a well-studied gentleman, but in this case as well as in others (he places Golgotha on the Mount of Olives), it seems to me that he is forced to go against some very early church traditions as well as to be a bit selective in which evidence is used and which is ignored.  The temple mount fits the descriptions given by Josephus and by others in every way.  There is no need to try to move it to some other location.

And no, I have not seen any reputable archaeologists buying into the theory that moves the temple to some other location.  Of course, you CAN find Muslim Palestinians who insist that the Temple was not here.  And you can likely find some that will say Jews were never in Jerusalem.