Return to the Temple Mount Home Page
by Tuvia Sagiv
Introduction
Scientific surveys began in the area of Moriah Court (Haram Es-Sharif) in
Jerusalem in the middle of the past century. (1)
From these surveys it has been discovered that the court area forms a rectangular
trapezoid. Its average dimension is approximately 300 x 500 meters, which
equals approximately 150 dunams (see Fig.1). (2)
The court differs in its shape and dimension from what we know of it in
the historical literature.
According to the Mishna, "The Temple on the Mount was 500 x 500 ama,"
(3) which is approximately 250 x 250
meters, (4)
and its area equals approximately 60 dunams.
According to Josephus Flavius, the sizes of the area was "ris by ris."
(5) This is approximately 190 x 190
meters and its area approximately 36 dunams. He also mentioned that the
length of the royal colonnade was a ris (approximately 190 m) and it continued
from the Eastern Valley to the Western Valley. (6) Today the length of the southern wall is approximately 290
m.
Despite the fact that the dimensions mentioned by the two sources differ,
both sources describe the court area as square shaped with a length of 200
meter 10% (according to a cubit equal to 44 cm, or about 18 inches).
The dimension of the Temple Mount area today is 3 times larger than what
was described by the sources and the shape differs as well. (See
Fig. 2) Consequently, some theories have been developed in an effort
to locate the temple in the court area of Moriah Court (Haram Es-Sharif).
The four main theories are as follows: the Central system, the Middle system,
the Northern system and the Southern system.
According to the Central system the altar was located on the rock inside
the Dome of the Rock (7) (see
Fig. 3) whereas the Middle system (a variation on the Central system)
places the holy of the holies on this site (8)
(see Fig. 4). According to the Northern
system, the holy of the holies was located on the stone inside the Ghost
Dome situated to the north of the Dome of the Rock (9) (see Fig. 5). Lastly,
the southern system places the temple near El Kas fountain to the south
of the Dome of the Rock (10) (see Fig. 6).
The system most generally accepted by scholars and the rabbinate is the
Middle system, (11) which located
the Holy of Holies at the site of the Dome of the Rock.
This article will examine the four above mentioned systems, as well as the
system which sites the levels of the Temple of the Mount according to the
Robinson's Arch (12) and the levels
of the temple according to Captain Warren's system. (13)
Scholars today disagree not only about the location of the temple, but also
about the length of the cubit which was the element of measurement used
during the time of the Second Temple. For this research the measurement
information is arranged in tables according to the different systems using
the dimensions and levels in meters according to typical cubit - a cubit
of 44 cm.; of 50 cm.; 56 cm.; and 60 cm. (14)
The sources for the various dimensions and levels were collected from descriptions
in the Mishna and in the writings of Josephus Flavius. Sources for more
recent dimensions and levels of the court area were surveys done by Warren
and Wilson in the past century. (15)
Other surveys were done in the Western Wall (16) by the Foundation for the Heritage of the Western Wall.
Still more surveys were conducted by the author (17) and further information was collected from the map of Jerusalem
which was published by the Department of Surveys. (See Tables 1-13. These
Tables are listed, and linked, at the end of this report).
Using three-dimensional geometry we can study the proposed locations of
the temple and its internal levels. By using this system we will be able
to examine the spatial relationship between the functions outside the area
and their comparison, the historical descriptions of Jerusalem with what
we know today of its topography.
The difference in the levels between the Hulda and Ciponus Gates as
compared to the level of the temple.
Located in the southern wall of the area are the Double and Triple Gates
which are recognized as the Hulda Gates. (18)
The Barclay Gate, which is recognized as the ancient Ciponus Gate, is located
in the Western Wall. (19) According
to the description in the Mishna and Josephus Flavius, 39 steps led up from
the main court gates to the level of the temple. The distance between these
two levels was 22 "cubit" which equals approximately 10 to 13
meters (see Table 5M). (20)
According to all the systems except the Southern system, the distance between
the levels of the Double Gate and the temple was approximately 17 to 23
meters (see Table 13A). If we assume that the Barclay Gate was the entrance
to the court then, the difference between the entrance gate, and the temple
level was approximately 23 to 27 meters (see Table 13C). This means that
the level is twice as high as was mentioned in the sources. In order to
resolve the problem of the difference in the heights of the levels, the
scholars and scientists assumed that there were tunnels which led from the
Hulda and Ciponus Gates to the temple court (21) (see Fig. 7). However,
in the description in past literature there is no mention of such tunnels.
The tunnels which exist today, leading from the Double and Triple Gates,
are arched constructions from a later period and we can not assume that
at the time of the Second Temple there were such tunnels (22) (see Fig. 8). According
to the descriptions in the literature, it seems that people gained entrance
directly to the temple court area coming up from the City of David, through
the Hulda and Ciponus Gates directly into the temple courts without traversing
intervening tunnels behind the gates (which tunnels are there today). (23) This means that if the Double and
Triple Gates (+725 meters above sea level) are the Hulda Gate, and the Barclay
Gate (+725 m) is the Ciponus Gate, then the level of these three gates
is at the original level of the Temple Mount (24) and we have to lower the level of the Temple Mount
by at least 11 to 16 meters from the currently existing court level (+737
meters above sea level). (see Table 1D).
Antonia's Fortress
Antonia's Fortress was in the Northwestern corner of the Temple Mount. The
purpose of building the fortress was to protect the Temple Mount from the
North, the least protected side of the city for foreign invasions. The fortress
was first built by the Hasmoneans and was enlarged and reinforced by Herod
the Great. During the time of Nehemiah the area was occupied by Hananel's
Tower also called Birah. The Hasmoneans called the fortress Baris,
and it was Herod the Great who renamed it after Mark Antonio. We have no
information about the dimensions of the fortress except the information
given to us by Josephus Flavius regarding the height of the fortress and
its towers. The dimensions given are 115 m from East to West, Western side
35 m and Eastern side 42 m, with four towers.
The rock on which the fortress was built was 50 cubits high (22-31 m). The
height of the fortress itself was 40 cubits (18-25 m.) and it had 4 towers,
one in each corner. The height of three of the towers was 50 cubits and
the fourth tower was 70 cubits (25)
(see Table 5A).
The fortress was used by Herod, followed by the Romans, and the Zealots
(the Kanaim) when the latter fought against the Romans. in the siege of
70 C.E. Titus entered the Temple Mount and the temple itself only after
he succeeded in conquering Antonia's Fortress. (26) According to the scholars, the Antonia fortress was located
in the area of the present El Omariah school which is in the Northeastern
corner of the Temple Mount courts (Fig. 9).
(27)
Checking the levels of the existing court shows that in the Northwestern
corner of the area there is no such rocky hill with a height of 25 m. Indeed
the El Omariah building is located on a rock, but this rock is no more than
7 m high in comparison with its surroundings (see Table 1N: O). So, where
is the rocky hill on which Antonia's Fortress was built? If we assume that
the rock of El-Omariah is the rock on which Antonia'a Fortress stood, then
the level of the Temple Mount should be approximately 25 m from the head
of the rock, or about 18 m lower than the level of the Moriah Court.
The Water Tunnels Supply The Temples
Water tunnels (aqueducts) supplied water to Jerusalem. The aqueducts began
in the area of the Hebron Mountains South of Jerusalem. The water was collected
at Solomon's Pools in Bethlehem and from there the tunnels gradually sloped
toward Jerusalem (28) (see Fig. 10 and Fig.
11). The later upper tunnel brought the water to the area of David's
Tower, or the Citadel, as it is referred to today. The older, lower tunnel
supplied water to the Temple Mount. This tunnel cut through the foot of
the mountain on which the Jewish Quarter is now located and from there it
enters into the Temple Mount through the Wilson Bridge (29) Visistors to the Western Wall who desend by the steps
at the Southern end of the Kotel from the Jewish Quarter can see this aqueduct
today, about half-way down the stairs. (see
Fig. 12). According to the description in the Mishna, the purpose of
the water tunnel was to supply water for the located above the Water Gate. (30) Another purpose of the water tunnel
was to cleanse the sacrificial court area of the animals' blood. (31)
For the purposes of the Temple rituals the water had to be "living
water," that is, fresh flowing water, not water lifted from a cistern.
According to all proposed systems for locating the Temples, except the Southern
system, there is no way to bring the water from the aqueduct to the Ritual
Bath (mikveh) by gravity as is required by religious law. (32) The aqueduct is lower by approximately 15-20 m from
the level of the Ritual Bath (see Fig. 13
and 13.G). Also, the cleansing of the Azarah (the priest's court) by
the water aqueduct is impossible because the aqueduct is lower by 2-8 m.
from the level of this court according to the other systems (see Table 13.I).
In order to bring the water to the High Priest's mikveh, located above the
Water Gate, and to enable cleansing of the court, we have to lower the level
of the Temple Mount by 16-20 m. from the level of the existing court (see
Table 11. O:Q) (see Fig. 14).
The view of King Herod Agrippa into the Temple area
Josephus Flavius describes as follows:
King (Herod) Agrippa built a huge hole in his palace which was located near
the existus. The palace had belonged to the Hasmonean family and was built
on a high place. The king was able to observe from the palace what was happening
in the temple. The people of Jerusalem objected to this because it was not
the tradition to observe what was taking place in the temple, especially
the animal sacrifices. (33) Consequently,
they built a high wall in the inner court above the western arcade (34) (see Fig.
15).
What did Agrippa see?
Herod Agrippa's palace was West of the Temple Mount, at or near the present
day Citadel and Jaffa Gate. The altar in the temple cannot be directly seen
looking from the West because the temple building prevents any view (see Fig. 16). The only way to see something
going on in the Temple Courts is through the passageways between the temple
wall and the walls of the court. If we were high enough, from the North
we could see into the sacrifice-slaughter area and viewing from the South
we could see the altar's ramp (see Fig. 17).
Moreover, without knowing exactly the location of Herod Agrippa's palace,
using vertical sections, we discovered that the western court wall prevented
any view from the western court even without the addition of walls (see Fig. 18). In order to have seen what
went on in the court, a building whose height was 31-47 m. above the ground
(10-16 floors) was needed (see Table 12). Without mechanical equipment it
would have been very difficult to climb to such a height, especially when
concerning a building whose purpose was domestic and residential.
Even from the highest towers in Jerusalem, the Phasael and Hippicus Towers,
there was no way to see what was being done in the temple court during the
time of the Second Temple. The height of these towers was 70-90 cubits,
(35) approximately 35-45 m (see Fig. 19). It is important to mention that
according to the Northern system for placement of the Temples, the level
of the Priest's court would have been lower by 10 m from the level of the
current court and from a building whose height was 23 m (~7 floors) the
sacrificing in the court could be seen (see Table 11 and 13) (see
Fig. 20).
Conclusion:
The level of the Hulda and Barclay Gates, the level of Antonia's Fortress,
the level of the Aqueduct, and Agrippa's view each proves independently
that the level of the Temple Mount should be be lowered.
Where can we locate the temple in lower place in the current court? In the
center of the present Temple Mount courts the area is rocky, i.e., bedrock
lies near the surface. In fact we can see the bedrock outcropping well above
the floor level in Dome of the Rock (see Fig.
21). Even to the North of the Dome, bedrock lies just under the paving
stones all the way to the Dome of the Tablets (or "Spirits") and
again in the areas which are close to the El Omariah School (36) (see Fig. 22). Nowadays,
the area just North of the Platform is covered with garden earth where there
is a known ancient moat. However, the only place in which we can locate
the temple in a sufficently lower place is the southern area between the
El Aksa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in the area of the El Kas ("The
Trophy") (see Fig. 23). South of
the Dome of the Rock platform the visitor descends a number of stairs. Beneath
his feet the bedrock drops sharply as one proceeds towards El Aksa mosque.
As is well known, the Mosque itself is supported on tall pillars, many meters
high - as is the whole Southern end of the Temple Mount platform. Outside
the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount, the bedrock of Mount Moriah drops
even more rapidly down to the City of David.
The Ancient Moat
According to the British research from the last century, there is a moat
between the Dome of the Rock and the El-Omariah School, in the Northeastern
section of the court area. (37) The
moat is covered today and can not be seen. According to the other systems
for placement of the Temples - the Central, Middle and Northern - this moat
would be located between Antonia's Fortress and the Temple (see Fig. 24).
On the other hand, in the literary sources there is no mention at all that
there was such a moat between those two structures. Antonia's Fortress and
the Temple Mount were connected. There were steps which one could descend,
from the Fortress to the arcades of the Temple Mount. (38) (See Fig. 25)
According to Josephus Flavius, there was a moat whose location was North
of Antonia's Fortress. (39) If we
will assume that this moat is the same moat that was mentioned in the literary
sources, then Antonia's Fortress, which was built on a rock, was South of
the moat. (40)
The only outcropping rock which can be found South of this moat is the bedrock
of the Dome of the Rock so we can assume that Antonia's Fortress was built
on this rock (see Fig. 26). According
to the sources, the Temple Mount was south of the rock, which means that
the Temple Mount was located south of the Temple of the Dome of the Rock.
The Southern system, which places the Temple Mount south of the Dome of
the Rock, substantiates the above mentioned claim that Antonia's Fortress
was located in the rock of the Dome of the Rock.
The levels of the Moriah Court and how they correlate to the literary
sources by assuming that the cubit was 44 cm.
The height of the rock in the Dome of the Rock was +743.7 meters above sea level (See Table 1.A). According to our assumption, this is the rock on which stood Antonia's Fortress. The difference in heights between the rock and its surrounding was 50 cubits, (41) which equals 22 m. Therefore, the level of the Temple Mount, which was connected to Antonia's Fortress, was +721.7 meters above sea level.
The level of the Water Aqueduct was 737.5 m (see Table 3.D). The difference in the heights between the Temple Mount and the Water Aqueduct was 39 cubit which equals 17.2 m. (see Table 5.N). Therefore the level of the Temple Mount, according to the Water Aqueduct, was +720.3 meters above sea level.
The level of the Barclay Gate, according to Warren, was +721.3 meters
(see Table 1.J). The level of Barclay Gate, according to current surveys,
is +720.1 m (see Table 1.J).
From all of this information we can therefore conclude that there is a correlation
between the literary descriptions about the Water Aqueduct and Antonia's
Fortress, and evidence in the area itself. We can claim that the level
of the Temples was +721 meters above sea level +/- 70 cm. (see Fig. 27).
The entrance to the Temple Mount from the South was direct without any need
of tunnels. The rock on which Antonia's Fortress was built is at the site
of the Dome of the Rock. Its height, above the surroundings, was 50 cubits.
The Lower Water Aqueduct brought water, by gravity, to the High Priest's
ritual bath (mikveh) and cleansed the court area. Agrippa could see the
court from a building whose height was no more than 23 m.
A by-product of this research is finding the dimensions of the cubit, a
problem which concerns many researchers. (42)
Using a cubit of 44 cm. (the Roman cubit) maximizes the correlation
between the evidence in the area itself and descriptions in the literature
(see Table 13).
The Hakra
One of the problems in the investigation of the Second Temple period is
the location of the Hakra. According to the literary sources, the ancient
Hakra Tower was south of the Temple Mount, but North of the City of David.
"After he destroyed (Antiochus) its walls he built the Hazra in the
lower city because it was higher than the temple itself." (43) Also in the description of the "Great Revolution",
approximately 70 A.D., it appears that the Hazra was south of the Temple
Mount. (44) Although the evidence
is unequivocal, scientists in the past centuries remained uncertain about
the location of the Hakra, citing almost any area in Jerusalem as a possibility.
(45) (See
Fig. 28)
The reason for this confusion is the contradiction between the evidence
about the height of the Hakra relative to the temple, on the one hand, and
the City of David, which was built on a much lower level, on the other hand.
Therefore the scientists tried to find other places to locate the Hakra
in Jerusalem from which there would be a view of the Temple Mount. According
to our assumption, the level of the Temples was more than 20 m lower than
the level of the Dome of the Rock. Therefore we can locate the Hakra on
a small hill south of the Temple Mount in the area of the present Double
and Triple Gates. From there one could view the Temple as it was described
in the literary sources (see Fig. 29).
This hill was removed during the reign of Simon in the Hasmonean period.
(46) The evidence of Josephus Flavius
about the Hakra substantiates our assumptions that the level of the Temple
Mount was lower that the level of the court today.
The Water Cisterns
In the Moriah Court there are currently more than thirty cisterns, some
of them are small and some of them are large. The cisterns were checked
and measured only in the last century (47)
(see Fig. 30). According to the drawing
of the cisterns we can see that the Northern cisterns are smaller in diameter
and their shape is regular, square, round, oval shaped or other. In contrast
to this, most of the Southern cisterns are very big and their shape is irregular
or amorphic. The average depth of the cisterns is approximately 16 m (see Fig. 31). May be the fallen stones of
the temple and court created holes which were later plastered and used as
water cisterns.
Radar Examination of the Moriah Court
In June 1990, radar examinations were conducted through the outer walls
of the Moriah Court. The instruments sent waves at a frequency of 90-900
Mhz. which recognized the differentiation of dielectric differences. There
is dielectric constant in cavities and voids is 1.0, but in bedrock or soil
is as high as 9-11. By taking advantage of these dielectric discontinuities
we can graphically identify cavities and structures inside the Moriah Court.
Radar examinations were made through the Western, Southern, and part of
the Eastern walls. (48) (see Fig. 32).
The examinations prove that beneath the levels of the Hulda Gates there
are large empty voids> These may be the great arches supporting the present
Temple Mount platform at its Souther end, which are described in the Mishna.
(49) Above the Hulda Gate the area
is filled with artifacts (rubble) and perhaps this broken rock is part of
the temple and its court (see Fig. 33).
These examinations prove the history that the original level of the Temple
Mount was the level of the Hulda and Barclay Gates.
Summary
By using a 3-dimensional system, we examined the spatial relationship of
the functions outside the court and their relationships to the Temple Courts,
we can determine with considerable confidence the location of the Temples
and its associated levels, and the location of Antonia's Fortress. More
than that, we can establish with greater confidence the length of the cubit
which was used by the temple builders.
In order to continue investigating the subject, especially taking into consideration
the political and religious sensitivities to this area, we are forced to
rely on non-intrusive geophysical examinations such as: radar tests, magnetic
and seismic tests, and infra-red imagery. These on-going examinations are
expected to provide us with much additional information about the Temple
site and its present contents, and will help reveal the secrets of the Temple
Mount.
The tables referenced in this report are accessible by links as follows:
Table I. Elevations on the Temple Mount
Table II. Data about the Wilson and Robinson Arches
Table III. Water Facilities around the Temple Mount and Jerusalem
Table IV. Data About the Temple
Table V. Heights on the Temple Mount from Literary Sources
Table VI. Levels on the Temple Mount and Courts Referenced to Robinson's Arch
Table VII. Levels on the Temple Mount and Courts according to Warren
Table VIII. Levels on the Temple Mount and Court in the Central System
Table IX. Levels on the Temple Mount and Court in the Middle System
Table X. Levels on the Temple Mount and Court in the Northern System
Table XI. Levels on the Temple Mount and Court in the Southern System
Table XII. Calculating the Height of Herod Agrippa's Palace
Table XIII. Comparison of all Suggested Temple Locations
| 1. | Robinson & Smith, Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1838, Crocher & New Breuster, 1856; Man Jerusalem and Zein Gerlande Guersloch, K.M. Kenyon, Jerusalem Excavating 3000 Years of History, London, 1974; The City of Jerusalem, London, 1974; De Vogue, Le Temple de Jerusalem, A. Vincent & Steve; Jerusalem de L'Ancien Testament, Vols. 1-4; C. Warren & C.R. Conder, The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem, London, 1894. |
| 2. | See map of Jerusalem, the Old City. scale 1:2500, The Department of Surveys 1985. |
| 3. | "Mishna Middot," Chapter B, paragraph A. |
| 4. | By assuming that the length of the cubit was 50 cm. Later we will relate to the difference opinions of the cubit. |
| 5. | Josephus Flavius, Early History of the Jews (translated into Hebrew by A. Shaleet), Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv, 1978, Vol. 15, Ch. 11, Par. 3 (hereinafter: "Early History"). |
| 6. | Ibid., Par. 3 and 5. |
| 7. | G. Delman, Annual Publication of Yeshiva Etz Haim, Jerusalem, 1873. Shick C. Der in Jerusalem 1890, criticism of this system see Koren, Temple Court of God, p. 306. |
| 8. | E. Yadin, "The First Temple," Book of Jerusalem, (pub. In Hebrew), 1955, pp. 176-190. |
| M. Yadin, "The First Temple," Book of Jerusalem, (pub. in Hebrew), 1955, pp. 397, 415 (hereinafter: Avi Yonah, "The Temple House"). | |
| Tikuchinsky, The Holy City and the Temple, (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1969, pp. 11-15. | |
| Z. Koren , The Courts of God's Temple (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 301-306. (hereinafter: Koren, The Courts of God's Temple). | |
| 9. | A. Kaufman, "The Second Temple, its Shape and its Location," The Temple Mount, it's Location and it's Borders ; Lecture Notes; April 1975, Jerusalem , 1975, pp. 39-46. |
| 10. | G. Kornfield, The Temple Mount is in the South of the Dome of the Rock, Tel Aviv, 1987. |
| J. Ferguson, The Temples of the Jews and Other Buildings in the Harim Area of Jerusalem, London, 1878, plate VII. | |
| 11. | Koren, The Courts of God's Temple , pp. 274-276. |
| 12. | M. Ben-Dov, The Dig at the Temple Mount, (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1872, p. 102 (hereinafter: Ben Dov, The Dig at the Temple Mount). |
| 13. | Warren, The Underground Jerusalem (translated by Shulamit Harran),
Tel-Aviv, 1987, p. 67 (hereinafter: Warren, The Underground Jerusalem). |
| 14.- | There are many theories concerning the lengths of the cubit, but we can assume that the cubit was 50 cm.+/- 20%. For the this article we have chosen the cubit as follows: |
| a) 1 cubit = 44.4 cm, which is the length of the Roman cubit. | |
| b) 1 cubit = 50.0 cm. the length of the cubit according to Warren (Warren, The Underground Jerusalem, p. 67) | |
| c) 1 cubit = 56 cm. the length of the cubit according to the dimensions of the Barclay Gate (Z. Koren, The Courts of God's Temple, p. 273) | |
| d) 1 cubit = 60.0 cm. (Tikuchinsky, The Holy City and the Temple, Part 4, p. 6) | |
| In order to make things simpler we can assume that the cubit that was used by J. Flavius and mentioned in the Mishna are the same dimensions. There is some evidence which supports this assumption: | |
| a) The dimensions of the Temple according to the sources are 100/100/100 cubits. (Mishna Middot, Ch. 4, Par. 6) | |
| Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, Vol. 5, Ch. 5, Par. 8 (hereinafter: War) | |
| b) The difference of the levels between the Priest's Court and the Temple Court was 16 cubits according to the (Mishna Middot, Ch. B, Par. 3, 4, 6_ and according to J. Flavius (Wars, Vol 5, Ch. 5, Par. 2) | |
| Another assumption is that the temples that are described in the Mishna and in J. Flavius' books are one and the same; Herod's Temple. The evidence which proves this assumption is: | |
| 1) Both temples, as described by the Mishna and Josephus Flavius, each possessed a height of 100 cubits and we know that the temple that had existed before Herod was only 60 ama high (History 15:11:1). | |
| 2) The dimensions of the Temple Mount according to the two descriptions were 200 +/- 10%. According to J. Flavius this "ris by ris" which equals 187 m. by 187 m. (History 11:3). According to the Mishna the dimensions of the Temple Mount were 500 by 500 ama which equals 220 by 220 m. (according to a cubit of 45 cm.) Mishna Middot, Ch. 2. Par. A). | |
| But in any case we have to emphasize that there are discrepancies between these two sources, e.g., the dimensions of the altar and the height of the gates, etc. (see A. Hilliseimer, The Dimensions of Herod's Temple, (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1974, pp. 26-61). | |
| 15. | Jerusalem Excavations by L. Ch. Warren R. E. 1867-1870, Palestine Exploration Fund. |
| 16. | The survey was conducted by Zion Sharon in the year 1990 by the Wailing Wall Heritage Fund. |
| 17. | The survey was conducted by Hagai Caspi in the year 1990 at the request of Tuvia Sagiv. |
| 18. | Mr. Avi Yona, "The Second Temple," The Book of Jerusalem, (pub. in Hebrew), p. 470. |
| 19. | Ben Dov, The Excavation Nearby the Temple Mount, (published in Hebrew). p. 142. |
| 20. |
6 cubits between the Women's Court and the Israeli Court
(Medot, Ch. 2 Par. 5).
7.5 cubits between the Women's Court and the Israeli Court
plus (Medot, Ch. 2 Par. 5).
2.5 cubits between the Israeli Court and the Priest's Court
(Medot, Ch. 2 Par. 6).
6 cubits between the Priest's Court and the level of the temple
(Medot, Ch. 3 Par. 6).
________________________
- 22.0 cubits
|
| 21. | Tunnels B. Mazar, "Excavation and Discoveries," Jerusalem in Herod's Time, (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1986, pp. 16-66. |
| 22. | Dating the Tunnels Vogue, M., Compte de la Temple de Jerusalem, Paris, 1864-65, p. 8. |
| 23. | "About the fourth side of the temple walls which face the south, in it there were gates in the center and nearby was the Basilica of the King." (History, 15:11:5). |
| From the text it is evident that there were no tunnels from the south in order to enter the Temple Mount. | |
| "In Western side of the wall there were four gates; one gate to the King's Palace through the valley, two gates to the 'Parbar', and the last gate to the other part of the city and was separated by steps that led down to the valley and then up to the city." (History 15:11:5). | |
| There is no description in this text of a tunnel which could confirm the restoration theories that state that there was a tunnel from the Barclay Gate to the Temple Mount Court. | |
| 24. | The difference in the levels between the Hulda Gate (+725 m) and the Barclay Gate (+720 m) is 5 m. The distance between the two gates in 100 m, which means that the difference is a 5% gradual slope. The difference between the levels of the Barclay and Warren Gates (+728 m) is 8 m. The distance between them is 150 m which means that the difference is a 5% gradual slope. We have to relate to all the gates as one level. Comparing the gates of the Robinson and Wilson Arch which are at the level of +/-736 m and +/-737 m respectively. |
| 25. | War, 5:5:8. |
| 26. | War, 6:2:7 |
| 27. | P. Benior, "The Archeological Restoration of Antonia's Fortress," Antiquities, (pub. in Hebrew), 1963, Vols. 19-20, p. 127. |
| 28 | . A. Mazar, "Review About Water Aqueducts to Jerusalem," Ancient Water Aqueducts in Israel, (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1989, p. 187, (hereinafter: A. Mazar, Water Aqueduct ). |
| 29. | A. Mazar, Water Aqueduct, p. 188. |
| 30. | This is the conclusion of Abaye, a Jewish sage of the 4th century, " What comes out is that the Ein Etam (the spring of Etam) is 23 cubits higher than the Azara." |
| 31. | Tosefta Psachim, Ch. 3, Par. 12, "How is the Azara cleaned? Seal the area and let the water from the aqueduct enter till it becomes clean like milk." |
| 32. | We have to emphasize that there is no religious commandment which states that the high priest should wash himself in spring water. |
| 33. | The translation of the Greek word ____________ means the act of killing the animal and the act of placing the animal on the altar. |
| 34. | Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, 20:8:11. |
| 35. | War, 5:4:3. |
| 36. | See Warren map No. _____. |
| 37. | D. Bahat, "Warren's Excavations in Jerusalem," Between Mt. Hermon and the Sinai Desert. |
| 38. | War 5:5:8. |
| 39. | War 5:4:2. |
| 40. | Perhaps the walls of the higher court are the remains of Antonia's Fortress? |
| 41. | See Table 5A. War 5:5:8. |
| 42. | See Footnote 14. |
| 43. | History, 12:9:3. |
| 44. | War 5:4:1. War 5:6:1. War 5:9:1. |
| 45. | Yoram Tzafir, "About the location of the Hakra in Jerusalem." Cathedra, Vol. 14, 1980. pp. 17-40. "Jerusalem through its Generations." The Open University Bulletin, Vol. 2, 1984, p. 124. |
| 46. | History, 13:6:7. |
| 47. | M. Hecker, "Supplying Water to Jerusalem in Ancient Times." The Book of Jerusalem (pub. in Hebrew), Jerusalem: 1956, p. 210. |
| 48. | The survey was conducted I. Magli in the year 1990, at the request of Tuvia Sagiv. |
| 49. | Mishna, "Red Cow (Heifer)." Ch. 3, Par. 3. |
All contents of this website ©1996 Tuvia Sagiv
All Rights Reserved. International Copyright secured.