Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount

Where exactly was the Temple located on the Temple Mount? There are several popular theories regarding the exact location of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem. Many believe that it was built in the same area where the present Dome of the Rock now stands. Another popular theory suggests that it stood over the Dome of the Tablets, a small shrine to the northwest of the Dome of the Rock. Still yet, another theory proposes that it was built between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque. Since it is impossible to do any excavation on the Temple Mount (although see the recent article at ritmeyer.com “Illegally Digging Up the Temple Mount”), is it possible to determine the Temple’s location? In Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, Leen Ritmeyer, an expert with over 40 years of experience involving excavations and research on the Temple Mount, reveals his understanding of the exact location of the Temples of Solomon and Herod, including the location of the Holy of Holies. From 1973 to 1977 Ritmeyer was chief architect of the Temple Mount excavations directed by Benjamin Mazar. From 1978 to 1983 he was field architect of the Jewish Quarter excavations of the Old City of Jerusalem headed by Professor Nahman Avigad. Since that time Ritmeyer has continued his research on the Temple Mount, even writing his doctoral dissertation on “The Architectural Development of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.” These qualifications make him an expert worth listening to.

Secret’s of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount: Contents

Secrets of Jerusalem's Temple Mount: Updated and Enlarged Edition is available at Amazon USA / UK as well as the Biblical Archaeology Society. — Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount: Updated and Enlarged Edition is available at Amazon USA / UK as well as the Biblical Archaeology Society.

Ritmeyer bases the conclusions in his book on ancient accounts such as Josephus and especially Middot (a portion of the Mishnah written around 200 A.D.). He also relies on archaeological evidence from recent excavations, as well as the pioneering work of Charles Warren who, in the 1860s, was able to dig various shafts and tunnels around the Temple Mount and explore underground areas no longer accessible due to the modern political situation. Warren and his team left very detailed accounts of their findings as well as some artistic drawings. The Contents of Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount are as follows:

1. “A Tour of the Temple Mount with Herod the Great,” is a fictionalized account written by Kathleen Ritmeyer, Leen’s wife, based on historical information of the period. The purpose is to provide the reader with some historical background in an entertaining way.

2. “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem.” This chapter gives a detailed description of what Herod’s Temple Mount Complex would have looked like. It includes photos, diagrams, and drawings of various aspects of the Temple Mount, including a drawing of what Ritmeyer believes Herod’s Temple Mount would have looked like.

3. “Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount,” is a short chapter that looks at the methods which would have been employed in cutting and preparing the stones, as well as how these massive stones were moved into place. One technique of moving the stones overlooked by Ritmeyer is attaching wheels to the stones so that they could be rolled to the site.

This diagram shows the size and position of Solomon's Temple Mount, according to Ritmeyer in his book, Secrets of Jerusalem's Temple Mount. It also shows how it was expanded by the Hasmoneans and Herod. — This diagram shows the size and position of Solomon’s Temple Mount, according to Ritmeyer in his book, Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. It also shows how it was expanded by the Hasmoneans and Herod.

4. “Reconstructing the Triple Gate.” In my times in Israel, I have heard some speculate that the Triple Gate and Double Gate at the top of the southern steps were for exiting and entering the Temple Mount. Ritmeyer, however, argues that the Triple Gate was only used by the priests and led to a large storage area. The Double Gate, on the other hand was used for visitors and had a very broad staircase (210 feet) that would have accommodated people entering and exiting. By contrast, the staircase in the Triple Gate is only 50 feet wide (p. 61).

5. Chapter 5, “Locating the Original Temple Mount,” is an indepth discussion which includes many helpful drawings and diagrams explaining Ritmeyer’s conclusions on where the original platform on which Solomon’s Temple was located. I have included one of those diagrams here which shows the position and dimensions of the original Temple Mount, according to Ritmeyer.

This diagram shows Ritmeyer's understanding of where the walls of the Holy of Holies would have been. The red rectangle marks the depression where the Ark would have set. — This diagram shows Ritmeyer’s understanding of where the walls of the Holy of Holies would have been. The red rectangle marks the depression where the Ark would have set and is right in the center of the Holy of Holies. (Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, p. 109).

6 & 7. Chapters 6 & 7 go together establishing Ritmeyer’s view on where the Holy of Holies was located and where the Ark of the Covenant rested. They are entitled respectively, “The Ark of the Covenant: Where It Stood in Solomon’s Temple,” and “Mark of the Ark Confirmed by Modern Technology.” Ritmeyer is convinced that the Ark rested in a rectangular depression on the es-Sakhra. The es-Sakhra is the highest point on the Temple Mount and lies exposed in the Dome of the Rock. Muslims believe it is the place where Mohammed ascended into heaven. Although some quarrying was done on this rock when the Crusaders briefly held it and turned the Dome of the Rock into a Christian Church (12th century), Ritmeyer argues that the area where the Ark rested has been preserved. He argues that the rectangular depression is just large enough for the Ark and a copy of the Law to lay before it. The depression is angled so that the longer side of the rectangle faces east-west. At first this puzzled Ritmeyer, but he notes that it agrees with the evidence found in 1 Kings 8:8 and with what the Talmud says about the length of the poles used to carry the Ark (pp. 117-118).

8. “The Structure of Herod’s Temple: Why We Can Rely on the Description in Middot,” is Ritmeyer’s defense of why this description in the Mishnah is the most reliable source. This chapter also goes into detail regarding the various sections of the Temple complex in the time of Herod such as the Women’s Court, the Court of the Israelites and Court of the Priests, etc., and includes another nice diagram of this area. Page 144 also includes a 3-D cut-away drawing of Herod’s Temple.

9. “What Did Solomon’s Temple Look Like,” is the final chapter in Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Ritmeyer states, “It is not difficult to draw a plan of Solomon’s Temple from its description in 1 Kings 6 and 7; it is much more difficult to draw a section through the building–to envision, in other words, what the building would have looked like if we sliced through it like a cake and looked at the inside” (p. 153). Ritmeyer says that the two biggest obstacles he faced in understanding the design of Solomon’s Temple was the difference in size between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies (30 cubits high as compared to 20), and the relationship of the two bronze pillars (named Jachin and Boaz) to the Temple itself. Regarding the height difference, many have suggested that there was an upper chamber of 10 cubits above the Holy of Holies or that the Holy of Holies stood 10 cubits higher than the Holy Place. However, Ritmeyer notes that if es-Sakhra is the location of the Holy of Holies, it stands 5 cubits higher than its surroundings. Given this information, Ritmeyer believes that there was a natural rock ramp that led up into the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place and that the roof of the Holy of Holies was 5 cubits lower than that of the Holy Place (p. 155). Concerning the bronze pillars, Ritmeyer notes that there is no evidence that they were freestanding, apart from the porch of the Temple, as found in some reconstructions. In every case in the ancient world, the pillars of a temple supported the porch. While conducting this research, Ritmeyer was requested to construct a model of Solomon’s Temple. He states that this request caused him to scrutinize the text of 1 Kings 6-7 even more carefully and led to a deeper understanding of Solomon’s building. His model can be seen below.

Ritmeyer's model of Solomon's Temple. — Ritmeyer’s model of Solomon’s Temple.

Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount: Evaluation

I have always leaned toward believing that the Temple originally stood on the site of the Dome of the Rock. First, temples were usually constructed on the highest point of a mountain. Second, once a place was considered holy in the ancient world, it usually stayed holy unless somehow desecrated. Since es-Sakhra is the highest point on the mountain, it makes sense this is where Solomon would have built the Temple. It also makes sense that Zerubbabel, and later Herod would have rebuilt the Second Temple on the same spot. It’s hard to imagine that Jews would have accepted moving the Holy of Holies to a different location, or any other part of the sacred structure. This is one reason I have never favored any of the other theories that have been proposed. Ritmeyer’s experience and study of the Temple Mount, and his indepth arguments have only served to strengthen my belief. Furthermore, Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, taught me many other details that I had no knowledge of. Even though this book is written for a general audience it is very detailed and technical and therefore it may not appeal to everyone. But for those who are interested in the Temples of Solomon and Herod, their significance, where they stood, and what they looked like, Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount is a goldmine of information. I highly recommend it!

For further information on the Temple Mount, including video presentations, go to http://templemount.org/

The Jehoash Inscription

Did you know that a number of prominent scholars believe that the Jehoash Inscription is authentic? Some of you might be saying, “Back up, I don’t even know what the Jehoash Inscription is!” Jehoash (also referred to as “Joash”) was king of Judah from 835-796 B.C. He is perhaps best known for being the king who initiated repairs on Solomon’s temple (2 Kgs. 12; 2 Chron. 24). The Jehoash Inscription (JI) is reputedly a royal inscription from the time of King Jehoash detailing the repairs that were carried out on the temple. It consists of 15 lines engraved on a black stone plaque. The inscription has similarities with the descriptions given in the biblical texts cited above, especially 2 Chronicles 24:8-14. A copy of the translation is given below.

For a clearer picture of this translation, go to the following site from Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) and click on the photo to enlarge it. If this inscription is authentic, it would be a discovery of momentous proportions!

The Jehoash Inscription: No Stranger to Controversy

Unfortunately, the Jehoash Inscription is shrouded in controversy. Among other problems, it was not found “in situ.” That is, it was not found in an official archaeological excavation, but in the collection of an antiquities collector named Oded Golan. Because antiquities are “big money,” scholars are always suspicious of objects that come from the antiquities market. Are they forgeries, or are they authentic relics of the past? The problem has become more complicated as criminals become more adept at making a forgery look like the real thing. If an artifact is not found in its ancient archaeological context, then it is open to suspicion.

The James Ossuary which reads, "James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus." — The James Ossuary which reads, “James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.”

The Jehoash Inscription was only one of several objects included in Oded Golan’s collection accused of being modern forgeries. The most famous object of this collection was the James Ossuary which included the provocative inscription, “James the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus.” An ossuary is simply a “bone box” where the bones of the deceased were placed after the desiccation of the flesh. Such bone boxes were only used for a limited time in Israel’s history (1st century B.C. through the 1st century A.D.), which happens to correspond with the time of Jesus and the early church. As a result, this ossuary and its inscription caused quite a stir. Charges of forgery also began to circulate. All of this came to a head with the indictment of Oded Golan and 3 others on December 29, 2004, and the confiscation of the supposed forgeries. The long trial finally concluded on March 14, 2012 with Golan’s acquittal. An account of the court’s decision, as well as details on the supposed forgeries (which many were convinced were authentic) can be found at BAR’s website at this location. Even though Golen had not been convicted, the Israel Antiquity Authority (IAA) demanded that the contested objects be kept and not returned to Golan. However, this demand was overruled and all of the objects, including the Jehoash Inscription, were returned to Golan who plans to put them on public display. More information of the possible authenticity of these items and the decision to return them to Golan can be found at the following site: Return the Jehoash Inscription.

Is the Jehoash Inscription Authentic?

This is a question that I am not qualified to answer, but the response of many of those who are qualified seems to be leaning in the direction that the Jehoash Inscription is indeed authentic. Besides the BAR articles sited above, the interested reader may also consult the following articles: for a detailed account of authenticity see: Archaeometric evidence for the authenticity of the Jehoash Inscription Tablet. Hershel Shanks, the editor of BAR has recently written another article supporting the authenticity of the Jehoash Inscription. It can be found in the July/August issue of BAR, 2014. For a summary of Shanks article you can click on the following site: Generation Word Bible Teaching.

It is unfortunate that questions of authenticity surround the Jehoash Inscription and, perhaps, always will. If it is authentic then it is the only royal Israelite inscription ever discovered. Moreover, it would be further evidence for the temple of Solomon, and it would confirm the biblical accounts of this event. Although we may never be certain of its provenance, the Jehoash Inscription is reported to have been discovered near the eastern wall of the Temple Mount in what is an old Muslim cemetery. This would certainly be the vicinity in which such an item would be expected to be found. If this is accurate there is a certain irony to the discovery of the Jehoash Inscription. It is said that in recent years the Muslim cemetery has been used for the burial of several Palestinians who were killed in suicide attacks on Israelis. It was during one such burial that the Jehoash Inscription was reported to have been discovered. Therefore, it appears that the burial of a Palestinian militant led to the discovery of an artifact that further testifies to Israel’s historic claim to the land. God certainly works in strange ways!