Flippant Evidence In Jerusalem's Rock-Cut-Rooms

Recently a paper published in conjunction with Weizmann Institute and Israel Antiquities Authority uncharacteristically stated: “Thus, several seeds from an ash layer found below a thin wall in Area U (Room 19040), indicate a 9th century BC date for the construction of this room and adjacent structures, as well as the hewing of a series of rock-cut rooms to which the architectural remains were connected based on stratigraphic observations (SI Appendix, Figs. S18 and S20). Also dating to this century in Area U was a collapsed refuse of building materials, uncovered in Room 17063, built directly on top of the bedrock (RTD 9180, Fig. 2 and SI Appendix, Figs. S4, S9, and S12).”

After Joe Uziel discovered the Iron Age fragments on the north eastern wall of the Spring Tower, he has carefully and consistently argued that Iron Age findings in stratigraphic layers bias the entire area, including Area U. Now he chose this opportunity to boldly, almost flippantly state "as well as the hewing of a series of rock-cut rooms" inferring that the rock-cut-rooms should also assume this Iron Age date. Not so fast Joe, here I present the most pertinent facts related to the strata and dating of the rock-cut-rooms, which you seem to ignore. 

With this information you can consider whether the last use of the rock-cut-rooms should be dated to the Iron Age (IA) or the Middle Bronze (MB) Age? I will only present the most relevant, critical, carbon dated samples, that were found closest to bedrock. 

Click to enlarge color coded image 

Sample IA RTD 9180 was found in a small pit (south) in a room and MB RTD 9181 on the northern end in a 5 cm ash layer just above the upper bedrock surface of Area-U, the ridge west of the rock-cut-rooms (in the pink rectangle). MB RTD 10293 and RTD 9965, were also found in Area U, but importantly these were located below the level of the upper bedrock surface, in soft soil, under a man-made plaster layer in a water channel that ran into rock-cut-rooms 1 and 5. MB RTD 10191, the oldest MB sample, was found under leveling rocks that were used to stabilize the wall of Room 1948. IA RTD 11362, furthest to the north, was found in a 5 cm ash layer and is the oldest of the IA samples found in that excavation.

Anecdotally notice the IA samples RTD 9180 and RTD 11362 are found on the south-north extremities of rock-cut rooms and are adjacent, whereas MB samples RTD 10293, RTD 9965, RTD 9181 and RTD 10191 are aligned east-west, to the functional, bedrock layers of the rock-cut-rooms.

For this discussion, there is little point paying attention to stratigraphic layers above these samples because they reflect the earliest possible dates the rock-cut-rooms were used, which is the fact that must still be established. I'm appealing to Joe to clarify these important, perhaps critical points because these rock-cut-rooms are extremely sensitive and these low lying stratigraphic samples potentially align with Israel's forefathers or even earlier Biblical figures and it deserves to be treated accordingly. 

A Challenge To Ancient Jerusalem's Status Quo

Key Points

• Research suggests the altar of Solomon's Temple may have been built in the wrong location, not meeting the boundary condition where the southeast corner of the altar should be in Judah and the other three in Benjamin.
• The evidence leans toward the traditional Temple Mount being entirely within Benjamin's territory, failing the condition.
• It seems likely that the overlooked altar location is on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in the City of David, potentially satisfying the boundary requirement.

Background

The question revolves around the location of the altar of Solomon's Temple and subsequent altars, focusing on a specific boundary condition: the southeast corner must fall within Judah, while the other three corners must be in Benjamin. This condition is rooted in biblical and historical interpretations of tribal territories.

Analysis

Traditional understanding places the altar of the Temple on the Temple Mount, north of the City of David, which appears to be entirely within Benjamin's territory based on biblical descriptions in Joshua. However, alternative research, particularly from the blog Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts, suggests the altar's original and true location should have been on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in the City of David. This location is proposed to be at the intersection of En Rogel and En Shemesh, on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, potentially allowing the southeast corner of the altar to be in Judah and the other corners in Benjamin.

Conclusion

Given the complexity, it seems plausible that the traditional Temple Mount location does not meet the boundary condition, while the proposed City of David location might. Further archaeological and textual analysis is needed to confirm, but the evidence leans toward the altar being misplaced historically.

---

Detailed Examination of Temple Altar Location and Tribal Boundaries

This survey note provides a comprehensive analysis of the location of the altar of Solomon's Temple and subsequent altars, focusing on the specific boundary condition that the southeast corner must fall within the territory of Judah, while the other three corners must be in the territory of Benjamin. The discussion is informed by detailed research from the blog Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts and supplemented by biblical and historical sources, aiming to address the user's query with depth and clarity.

Historical Context and Traditional Location

The Temple of Solomon and its altar, constructed around 957 BCE, was located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a site north of the City of David. Biblical texts, such as 2 Chronicles 3:1, state that Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where David had seen the angel of the Lord. Historical and archaeological consensus, supported by sources like Temple of Jerusalem | Description, History, & Significance | Britannica, places this site within the modern Old City, encompassing the area of the Dome of the Rock.

Biblical descriptions of tribal boundaries, particularly in Joshua 15 and 18, indicate that Jerusalem was part of Benjamin's territory, with the boundary between Judah and Benjamin running along the Valley of Hinnom. For instance, Joshua 18:28 lists Jerusalem (the Jebusite city) within Benjamin's allotment, suggesting that the Temple Mount, being north of the City of David, is likely within Benjamin. This implies that the traditional altar location would have all four corners within Benjamin, failing the condition that the southeast corner be in Judah.

Alternative Proposal: City of David Location

The blog Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts challenges the view, proposing that the overlooked location for the altar has been found on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in the City of David. This area, south of the Temple Mount, is identified as historically significant, potentially linked to Jacob's monument and biblical events like the Akeida of Isaac. Posts such as Jerusalem's Mysterious Temple Location? suggest this site as the location for Jerusalem's Third Temple altar, based on Jewish law and archaeological findings.

The blog cites the work of archaeologist Professor Ronny Reich, particularly referencing the spring east of the city, identified as En Shemesh (often equated with the Gihon Spring), to reconcile tribal boundaries from Joshua. The main page of the blog states: "Ronny used En Shemesh to reconcile a difficult passage from the Book of Joshua that defined Israel's tribal boundaries. We found that it perfectly describes the prerequisite intersection of the altars raised bedrock foundation, on the northern boundary of tribe Judah with the southern boundary of tribe Benjamin." This suggests the altar's foundation is at the boundary, potentially allowing for the southeast corner to be in Judah and the others in Benjamin.

Tribal Boundaries and Geographical Analysis

To understand this, we examined the biblical boundaries. Joshua 15:7-8 for Judah and Joshua 18:16-17 for Benjamin describe the boundary passing through points like En Shemesh and En Rogel, identified as springs southeast of Jerusalem. En Rogel is located at Bir Ayyub in Silwan, at the convergence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys, while En Shemesh is often identified with 'Ain el-Hod near Bethany, on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives (Bible Map: En-rogel, Encyclopedia.com on En-Rogel). The blog's claim that the altar is at the intersection suggests it is near the Gihon Spring, in the City of David, which is on the boundary line.

Maps and historical analyses, such as those from Tribe of Benjamin - Wikipedia, indicate Jerusalem, including the City of David, was within Benjamin, but the southern edge might be on the boundary with Judah. The Valley of Hinnom, running south of the City of David, is a key marker, suggesting the boundary could cut through this area. The blog's proposal implies the altar's placement on the high ridge allows the southeast corner to extend into Judah, satisfying the condition.

Supporting Evidence from the Blog

Several posts provide supporting details:

• The Neck And The Site Of The Temple discusses the topography, suggesting the City of David area as the original patriarchal temple site, with references to ancient routes through Benjamin's land explaining "quarters" in Joshua 18:14-15.
• City of David is Zion - What is the Temple Mount? includes comments like "Solomon's temple and altar were built in the wrong place?" and shows an image of the bedrock foundation in the City of David, implying a different location.
• The main page and related posts, such as Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts: November 2021, discuss boundaries, with references to Bethel and Ai, reinforcing the boundary's location near the proposed altar site.

Conclusion and Implications

The blog argues that the traditional Temple Mount location fails the boundary condition, as it is entirely within Benjamin. In contrast, the proposed location in the City of David, on the high ridge above the Gihon Spring, is at the intersection of En Rogel and En Shemesh, aligning with the boundary. This positioning could allow the southeast corner to be in Judah, with the other corners in Benjamin, satisfying the user's condition. This interpretation is supported by archaeological findings and biblical analysis, though it remains controversial and requires further study to confirm.

This survey note encompasses all relevant details from the research, providing a thorough basis for the direct answer and highlighting the complexity and debate surrounding the temple's location.

---

Key Citations

• Israel's Hidden Ancient Facts Main Page
• Jerusalem's Mysterious Temple Location Blog Post
• The Neck And The Site Of The Temple Blog Post
• City of David is Zion - What is the Temple Mount Blog Post
• Bible Map En-rogel Reference
• Encyclopedia.com Entry on En-Rogel
• Tribe of Benjamin Wikipedia Page
• Temple of Jerusalem Britannica Page