s as his guide in planning the Temple. Nevertheless, he doubled the Mosaic dimensions of the two chambers, the Holy of Holies (Kodesh Ha-Kodashim) and the Holy Place (Kodesh). So a reasonable assumption is that Solomon also doubled the Mosaic dimensions of the Court of the Tent of Meeting (which, according to Exodus 27:9, Exodus 27:12, were 100 cubits by 50 cubits) when he constructed the Court of the Priests in his Temple. If this assumption is correct, the internal length of the Court of the Priests in King Solomon’s Temple was 100 cubits and its internal breadth 100 cubits.
As previously noted, the archaeological evidence consists of a second set of ancient remains of a distinctive character. This second set is oriented 6° south of west, or perpendicular to that direction.
Warren11 was perhaps the first to observe that “the rock scarp of the Antonia, and the scarp at the northern end of the Dome of the Rock platform [14 on the plan], are both perpendicular to the Eastern Wall [of the Temple Mount], while the straight cutting on the sacred rock [as-Sakhra] is parallel to the east wall.” I agree with Warren that this cannot be a mere coincidence. As Warren added, it “points to the fact that the ancient buildings on this platform, and to the north of it, of which the rock cuttings indicate the foundations, were erected with reference to, and perhaps at the same time as, the east wall [of the Temple Mount].”
In addition to the rock cuttings cited by Warren, there are eight more finds that have exactly the same orientation or close to it: 6° south of west, or perpendicular to that direction.
Moreover, the dimensions of this set of finds are related to a unit of length of 42.8 cm, the unit of length we previously identified as the cubit of Moses or the First Temple cubit.
With this information, I attempted to determine the orientation and location of the axis of symmetry of the First Temple. This was done mathematically by setting up two equations involving, among other assumptions, the identification of two of the finds as part of the foundations of the Temple courts. The orientation was calculated and found to be 6.2° south of west, exactly in agreement with that of the individual finds in the second set.
The superimposition of the First Temple plan on the site shows beautifully how well the archaeological finds interlock within the overall picture of the First Temple. The intuitive guess was correct. Find 13, which could not be fitted into the framework of the Second Temple, is indeed part of the foundation of the parapet Josephus called the geision.
A few more points of interest may be mentioned. Find 14 was a crypt supporting the northeastern angle of the Court of the Priests and part of the Outer Court. An extract from the description of this feature discovered by Warren12 is particularly significant: “The Souterrain [crypt] has no appearance of having been constructed for a tank; there is not a sign of plaster about, … [it] was apparently built for the purpose of raising up the Sanctuary [Temple Mount] to a general level.” And now a point completely unanticipated: the rock-mass 1 served as the foundation of the northwestern corner of the Court of the Priests, as it did for the same corner of the Inner Court in the Second Temple. The bedrock sheltered by the Dome of the Tablets and identified as the Foundation Stone falls within the area of the Holy of Holies and its bounding northern wall.
An interesting feature is the connection between the placement of the First and Second Temples. Ancient literary sources, the Mishnah (Middot 3:1), the Talmud (B.T. Zevahim 61b) and Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XI 76, inform us that the Second Temple was built on the same site as the First. The identifications of the Foundation Stone under the Dome of the Tablets and rock-mass 1 confirm these statements in part. A more detailed analysis can be made by superimposing the plans of the First and Second Temples on a map of the site according to their respective locations. The result of the superimposition is shown in the figure below. There are two striking results. Most of the area of the Court of the Priests in the First Temple is covered by the Inner Court of the Second Temple. This is consistent with the fact that the latter court was the equivalent of the former and both were equally sacred. Secondly, the axes of symmetry of the two Temples intersect at a point on the northern face of the Altar of Sacrifice within the Second Temple, a short distance from its northwestern corner. This is an amazing confirmation of the text in Middot 3:1, which states that those who returned from the exile in Babylon “added to it [the Altar] four cubits on the south and four cubits on the west, like [the Greek letter] gamma.”
Israel Survey Section and Pantomap Ltd., Jerusalem
First and Second Temples superimposed on Temple Mount platform.
The relationship of the First Temple to its environment should not be omitted, even in a short account. The foundations of the central part of the eastern wall of the Temple Mount date to the time of the First Temple, built either by King Solomon himself or built in a later period. If one is seeking a holy wall, then surely this is it. The exact dating of this wall is uncertain. However, it may well be the eastern wall of the Great Court referred to in 1 Kings 7:9, 1 Kings 7:12, that encompassed both the Temple and the royal palace. And the archaeological finds have served to identify the location of the remaining three walls bounding the Great Court (on the west side number 8, on the north side number 18 and on the south side two finds not shown on the plan).
As-Sakhra, the rock-mass under the Dome of the Rock, has its western face cut almost perpendicular to the direction 6° south of west. It is tempting to identify it as part of the foundation of Solomon’s royal palace, which was located south of the First Temple.
If we extend the axis of symmetry of the First Temple eastward, it will intersect the Golden Gate 1.4 m south of the middle column separating the two arched entrances on the eastern facade of the gate. The position of the Golden Gate is the natural location for the eastern gate to the Temple Mount, directly facing the First Temple.
In conclusion, the Temple puzzle is in effect a double jigsaw puzzle of which only a comparatively few—about 50—archaeological pieces are known. The picture of the First Temple is assembled from its pieces. The composition is then taken apart, except that certain key features, for example the foundation of the northwestern corner of the Court of the Priests (rock-mass 1), are retained. This stage corresponds to the destruction of the First Temple. The second picture, that of the Second Temple, is now assembled, employing the pieces retained from the first as well as a new set. This corresponds in history to the rebuilding of the Second Temple on the same site as the First but with a slightly different orientation.
Each piece of the jigsaw puzzle is interlocking, and the two jigsaw puzzles interlock with one another, as, for example, in their common position of the Altar of Sacrifice and of the Foundation Stone in the Holy of Holies, now within the Dome of the Tablets. The archaeological finds on the site interlock precisely in a consistent manner in the plans of both Temples and with the ancient literary sources. The result precludes any other interpretation.
A Note on Nomenclature
In Asher Kaufman’s article on the location of the Temple on the Temple Mount, he uses the terms Holy of Holies, the Holy Place and the Porch for the three parts of the Temple. He calls the main building of the Temple compound the Hékhal.
In Hebrew the Porch is ulam It is sometimes also translated porrico” and “vestibule.”
In Hebrew the Holy Place is Kodesh. This room is also referred to in the Bible as the Hékhal. Hékhal is variously translated as “great hall” and “sanctuary.” (As noted above, Hékhal also may refer to the entire main building of the Temple compound.)
In Hebrew the Holy of Holies is Kodesh Ha-Kodashim. This area is also referred to in the Bible as the debir. Debir is variously translated as “shrine” and “inner sanctuary.”—Ed.
Acknowledgment
The maps in this article were specially prepared by the Israel Survey Section and Pantomap Ltd., Jerusalem. The drawings were made by Mr. Jean-Marc Hamou. During the course of the research, support in part was given by the Ministerial Committee of Estates and Legacies for the Benefit of the State of Israel; P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.; the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture; the Israel Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Authority for Research and Development of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. My grateful thanks are extended to all of them.
Table of Correspondence of Ancient Remains
In previous articles, Dr. Kaufman used a different numbering system to identify ancient remains. For those who wish to compare the remains as described in this article with his earlier articles, we list below a Table of Correspondence.
1 = 31
2 = 33
3 = 34
4 = 35
5 = 37
6 = 44
7 = 41
8 = 48
9 = 46 (Cistern III)
10 = 4
In Arabic this cupola is called Qubbat el-Arwah, Dome of the Spirits. Has this Arabic name preserved an ancient memory of the holiness of the site? In Sinai, where the glory of the Lord appeared before the whole community of Israel, Moses and Aaron addressed the Lord as “God of the spirits of all mankind” (Numbers 16:22; see also Numbers 27:16, Ezekiel 37, Job 12:10). Dome of the Spirits is certainly an appropriate name to mark the dwelling place of the Lord’s name, the center of his Divine Presence.
But this cupola also has another Arabic name: Qubbat el-Alouah, Dome of the Tablets. In the Holy of Holies of Solomon’s Temple was kept the Ark of the Covenant, now lost, containing the two stone Tablets of the Law given to Moses on Mount Sinai. According to M. de Vogüé,8 the name Dome of the Tablets was given to this cupola because it is dedicated to the memory of the Tablets of the Law. Once more a name preserves the ancient memory of the location of the Holy of Holies.
This is not the end of strange coincidences. The Dome of the Tablets stands on bedrock that protrudes from the platform surrounding the Dome of the Rock. Otherwise, this platform in the vicinity of the Dome of the Tahlets is paved with flagstones. The highest point of as-Sakhra, the rock-mass under the Dome of the Rock, is 743.7 meters above the Mediterranean Sea; the bedrock under the Dome of the Tablets is only a meter lower, 742.7 meters.
Moreover, unlike the irregular rock-mass under the Dome of the Rock, the bedrock under the Dome of the Tablets is flat. The Ark of the Covenant could have been easily placed on this flat surface.”f
According to an ancient Jewish source, the Toseftag(Yom Ha-kipurim 3:6; see also Mishnah Yoma 5:2), the Ark of the Covenant rested on a “Foundation Stone” inside the Holy of Holies. Is it possible that the bedrock under the Dome of the Tablets is in fact the Foundation Stone (Even Shetiyah) referred to in the Tosefta and Mishnah, on which the Ark of the Covenant rested? For the moment, let us postpone a definitive answer.
The method I use to solve the Temple puzzle does not rely upon the foregoing facts, but rather on a more general, and at the same time, a more detailed investigation. Demonstrating the precise location of the Second Temple and of the Holy of Holies within it makes use of two types, and to a much lesser extent, a third type, of evidence.
The first is literary evidence. It is reasonable to assume that the closer the literary source is to the Temple period, the more authentic and reliable its testimony will be. The Second Temple toward the end of its existence is described in great detail and in fairly systematic fashion in tractate Middot of the Mishnah. Although the Mishnah was not codified in its present form until about 200 A.D., its contents were composed and transmitted orally during an earlier period. The three central chapters of Middot—there are only five chapters in all—leave one with the impression that here is the description of an eyewitness. The general conclusion is that the text of Middot can be relied upon for an accurate account of Temple dimensions. Another literary source is the writings of Josephus, the Jewish historian who lived both before and after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Josephus describes, albeit unmethodically, certain features of the Temple in great detail, in effect providing us with a second eyewitness account. Although there are apparently some discrepancies between the accounts of Josephus and the more traditional Jewish sources, a number of these problems are actually resolved by my research.
The second type of evidence is what can be called archaeological finds on the site. These finds are both below and above ground level. Those below ground were investigated and described by the explorers of the last century, Sir Charles Wilson, Sir Charles Warren, Colonel C. R. Conder and Conrad Schick. Wilson led the British Ordnance-Survey expedition of 1864–65, the first to make an extensive scientific survey of Jerusalem. Among its many findings were 20 underground cisterns on the Temple Mount that the survey described and mapped. Warren’s explorations of 1867–70, sponsored by the then newly formed Palestine Exploration Fund, included an underground survey of the exterior foundations of the walls hounding the Temple Mount; this engineering feat, unsurpassed to this day, was undertaken despite local prejudice and pursued under conditions of physical suffering, long endurance and the anxiety of digging in the dark. Warren also continued Wilson’s efforts at drawing plans of the cisterns and other underground features, and determining rock levels on the Temple Mount. Conder added to this knowledge while conducting the “Western Survey of Palestine” in 1872–75. He was perhaps the most naturally gifted of this group of British explorers from the Royal Engineers. Schick, the Imperial German architect at Jerusalem, who cooperated with the Palestine Exploration Fund, supplied drawings of cisterns that had not been previously described.
My comprehensive recording and mapping of the available archaeological evidence above ground were the first to be conducted systematically and scientifically. The finds above ground include rock cuttings, rows of stones, wall remains and sections of pavement, as well as artifacts such as mosaic cubes, glass fragments and potsherds. In addition, my work makes use of preserved records of previous investigators, including unpublished archive material, and aerial photographs, as well as old photographs. The archaeological evidence also includes some recent (1979 and 1981) unscientific excavations by the Moslem authorities. Finally, even marks of vegetation are important because differential plant growth in relation to the surroundings may indicate the presence of ancient buried walls. All of the foregoing is what I call the archaeological evidence as distinct from the literary evidence.
Thirdly, artistic representations of the Temple in the form of coins and gold glass provide some, albeit limited, evidence.
The problem of locating the Temple on the Temple Mount breaks down essentially into two questions: first, what was the plan of the Temple and, second, where was it located? Although they are intertwined, and the evidence regarding one is often relevant to the other, the two questions will be separated for convenience of description.
In the literary sources, the Temple dimensions are quoted in cubits, so before the first question can be answered, the length of the cubit must be determined.
The Second Temple was built on the basis of the medium cubit (ammah in Hebrew), which was divided into six handbreadths (Mishnah Kélim 17:10), as distinct from two other kinds of cubit of five and seven handbreadths. Scholars have come up with different lengths for the medium cubit, ranging from 40.6 cm to 66 cm.9 The dimensions of a number of the archaeological finds on the Temple Mount that can be readily measured are an integral multiple of a particular unit of length or half this length; this unit of length is 43.7 cm. For example, in one of the sides of rock-mass 1h two of the three holes reamed in it have their centers spaced 43.7 cm apart, that is, a spacing of one unit. A well-cut niche in the same rock-mass that hardly shows the wear of time is 131 cm long, that is, 3 x 43.7 cm. There are two large slabs of bedrock (11) close to one another that form part of the eastern retaining wall of the platform of the Dome of the Rock; they are respectively 2.6 m long (6 units) and 3.0 m long (7 units). These are only a few examples; there are many more, sufficient to establish 43.7 cm as the basic unit of length—the medium cubit—used in the construction of the Second Temple.
A second set of finds on the Temple Mount displays a slightly different unit of length, 42.8 cm. These finds can be distinguished from the former set by their distinct orientation. Lest it be thought that this difference simply reflects a mistake in measurement, we may examine, by way of example, the crypt near the northeastern corner of the platform (see feature 14 on the plan). Nine of the dimensions shown on Warren’s drawings of the crypt fit a unit of length 42.8 cm or half this length, with an uncertainty of only three-tenths of a millimeter.
vn Dating
rc c c Dating Sites Free v Dating Dating Sites Free