The Temple stood on the hill where the Dome of the Rock is today. Why here and not on one of the higher neighboring hills?

The Book of Genesis tells us that the near-sacrifice of Isaac occurred on the Mountain of the Lord. The Samaritans identify that mountain with Gerizim, but others, including the writers of Psalm 24 and Chronicles (2 Chron. 3:1), put it here: this was the place, they held, where Abraham passed the ultimate test of faith, and where God became present at the crucial moment. What better place for Him to become present to all who trust in Him?

Yet there were other reasons too for building the Temple here. For the people of Jerusalem lived at first on this hill alone. They were farther down, on the narrow, defensible spur to the south, where the spring is. (Details) On the peak was the grand outcropping of bedrock, which must have exerted a numinous power. It is possible that the pre-Israelite denizens of the city also worshipped from there, facing west, as the Israelites later would. For the name "Jerusalem" means not "city of peace," as the popular etymology has it, but "city of Salim," the Canaanite god of the setting sun. Some think the city was the Salem of Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20.)

David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. He must have established an accord with its inhabitants, for later he goes "up" and buys the threshing floor of Arauna the Jebusite, erecting a sacrificial altar there (2 Samuel 24: 24). The passage does not say where this threshing floor was, but we read in 1 Chronicles 22:1, "Then David said, 'This is the house of the LORD God, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel.'"

Where then was this altar, and where was the House of the Lord? Valiant souls break their heads on such questions. It is very hard, perhaps impossible, to reconcile the archaeological data, scarce but important, with the literary sources, which are mainly three: the Mishnah's Tractate Middoth("Measurements"), Josephus' Antiquities, and his earlier Jewish War.

Josephus (War V 5.1) indicates that Solomon's Temple was built on the top of the hill:

Now this temple, as I have already said, was built upon a strong hill. At first the plain at the top was hardly sufficient for the holy house and the altar, for the ground about it was very uneven, and like a precipice; but when king Solomon, who was the person that built the temple, had built a wall to it on its east side, there was then added one cloister founded on a bank cast up for it, and on the other parts the holy house stood naked. But in future ages the people added new banks, and the hill became a larger plain.

The rock beneath the Dome of the Rock is the highest point on the hill. There was a valley between this hill and the high scarp to the north, where Herod built the Antonia Fortress (see photo below), so that was another hill.

But how did Josephus know where Solomon's Temple was? He doesn't say. He may have been "reading back" from the Second Temple, which he did know. His testimony is probably good, because of the continuity. Between the destruction of the First and the building of the Second, only sixty years passed; we may assume that some returnees from Babylon remembered where the First had been. If any of its foundations were still in place, they would have reused them.

Besides, it simply makes sense that the Temple would have been on top of the hill.

Some connect the rock beneath the dome to a reference in the Mishnah:

After the Ark was taken away, a stone (Heb. even, pronounced to rhyme with "heaven" -- SL) from the days of the Early Prophets was left standing there (in the Holy of Holies) three fingerbreadths above the ground, and it was called Shetiyah [foundation], and on it the High Priest would place the pan of glowing coals." (Mishnah, Tractate Yoma 5.2.)

But this stone was probably not the rock we see. One would not say of bedrock (sela in Hebrew, not even) that it was "left standing there" or that it was "above the ground." Bedrock is part of the ground.

Although the Mishnah won't help here, another witness may. The rock has a hole that opens into a cave. The Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 AD) indicates that in his time the Jews were allowed to enter the city once a year to weep for the Temple at a rock with a hole in it.

Beyond this point the going gets rougher. With rare exception, one may not do archaeology on the Haram. For reasons we can understand, whether or not we agree, the Muslim authorities do not usually allow it. Apart from the literary sources, then, we have only what we can see on the surface, plus the magnificent work of Charles Warren.

All four corners of the Haram seem to correspond with Herod's structure. (The northeast corner doesn't look that way, but Leen Ritmeyer has argued convincingly that it belongs.) The western wall is 1590 feet long, the northern 1030, the eastern 1540 and the southern 920.

(Yet the Mishnah says the "mountain of the Temple" was a square, 500 cubits on each side. [Tractate Middoth, 2. 1. (Drag on margins to enlarge the window, then look under "Sources: The Mishnah.")] Depending on which standard of the cubit the rabbis used, that could be up to 861 feet. Even if we exclude the walls and porticoes, it isn't nearly enough! There is, in short, a problem with the Mishnah's account .)

As for the Holy of Holies, it was probably where the Dome of the Rock is. We have reasoned that the Temple was on the top of the hill, and here was the top. In Solomon's time, according to Josephus in the passage quoted above, the lay of the land was a major factor. We know that the Holy of Holies was at the western extremity of the Temple. As Warren's plan shows (left), you could not go more than a few yards west of the rock without sliding downhill.

Leen Ritmeyer has noticed a few tantalizing features of the rock. There are cuttings all over. The Crusaders made a mess of it. Yet several may be ancient, and these arouse special interest. If we stand near the reliquary, on the western side looking east, between us and the hole in the rock (which Ritmeyer calls Crusader, ignoring the Bordeaux pilgrim), we see sections that someone cut flat. The total width of these flat sections, north to south, is 10 feet, 4 inches: 6 royal cubits. Ritmeyer thinks that these were foundation trenches for building stones. According to the Mishnah, the walls of the Holy of Holies were 6 cubits thick.

Let us try to imagine this wall. Note that the "foundation trenches" do not continue all the way to the point where the western wall of the Holy of Holies would have been. There is an awkward upwelling of stone just east of the reliquary. On Ritmeyer's theory, this area too should be smooth.

Apart from that, the theory works nicely -- and harbors another surprise. Having imagined this southern wall of the Holy of Holies, let us picture its western wall (starting about where the reliquary is) and its northern one, of equal length, as well as the curtain on the east. The result is the biblical square with 20 cubits on each side. Looking at the rock from above, we find in the center a rectangular cut, perpendicular to the western scarp. Ritmeyer estimates it as 1.5 by 2.5 royal cubits. These are the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:10).

Ritmeyer's theory is at once exciting and exasperating. He may have found the place of the ark. There remains the problem of the awkward lump, mentioned above. And the rock has been so chipped away! Beginning a few feet to the east of the putative "cutting for the ark," we can see, as the rock slopes down, the traces of a series of cuttings with a similar form and axis. Along with the supposed "foundation trenches," these traces leave the impression that the rock was quarried for building stones. So does the sudden drop on its north side. The "cutting for the ark" may be the impression left by a quarried stone. Or perhaps, despite later quarrying around it, it was the cutting for the ark.

David Jacobson has pointed out another difficulty. There is very little divergence between Josephus and the Mishnah concerning the number of steps that ascended from the lower platform to the Holy of Holies. The Mishnah mentions 29 steps, including a "barrier" which was the equivalent of five. Josephus has (a) 14 steps from the lower platform to the terrace. Then he has (b) 5 up to the gates in the Temple proper (these are the equivalent of the Mishnah's barrier; on the east, at Nicanor's gate, 15 shallow steps do the work of the 5). Then he has (c) another 12 from the Court of the Priests up to the Sanctuary. Thus Josephus' steps total 31.

The Mishnah also gives the height of each step: half a cubit. To the Holy of Holies, then, one ascended 25 feet (or more). If we assume a non-royal cubit of 18 inches, we get 22 feet. Josephus' figure would be slightly higher.

And here is the problem: the lower platform of the present Haram is at the same level as the Herodian. (See Jacobson, p. 61.) The rise from the lower platform to the top of the rock is 21 feet. (So it is too on Wilson's map. See above.) Conclusion: the rock was beneath the floor.

Those who wish to explore the matter further may do so at their own risk. Here are some links:

In the Mishnah (Drag on margins to enlarge the window and see under "Sources, Mishnah")

In Josephus' The Jewish War V 5:1-6 and his Antiquities of the Jews XV 11: 1-7.

The Website of Leen Ritmeyer (Drag on margins to enlarge the window.)

Of such scraps and guesses and exciting suggestions is our imagining of the Temple Mount composed, but while breaking our heads over numbers of steps, we risk losing sight of the grandeur. Here was a tremendous piece of work. Jerusalem was the leading 0city in the East, and a fifth of it was the Temple.

Jerusalem: An Introduction

The Dome of the Rock

A Brief Chronology of the Temple Mount, the Muslim Noble Sanctuary

Muslim Prayer

From the Temple to the Dome of the Rock

The al-Aqsa Mosque

The Temple Mount

Where was the Temple?

The Dome of the Spirits: Place of the Temple?

The Red Heifer

The Mishnah as a Source for the Temple

Pilgrimage in the time of the 2nd Temple

Logistics for a visit to the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque, once the area of the Temple

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(r),
(c) Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by
The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org)

MAIN MENU