Israel's Trajectory To Theocratic Democracy

The first working session of Israel's 37th government took place on the 1st of January 2023, international new years day. A significant challenge of its term will be fending off foreign pressure, including the UN and the International Court that will no doubt attempt to find and declare Israel guilty of various crimes. However, these opinions are less important than Israel's domestic conflict between its religious and secular authorities. The recent decision by its Supreme Court against Aryeh Deri, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Shas Party has exposed this conflict and will polarize the nation to carefully consider its judicial future. 

The response from Deri's party; "...Shas is studying this painful decision and will decide on its next steps in accordance with the guidance of the Council of Torah Sages." Previously Shas said that Prime Minister would decide what to do with Deri, after that the Council of Torah Sages would decide what they will do. The rhetoric is loud as the opposition and executives of Israel diaspora NGO's object to the forthcoming draft legislation that will finally, decidedly enable the elected government to legislate around the Supreme Court.

The last Pew poll to consider how democracy relates to Israel's religious secular divide, exposed a 2016 problem, which today is acutely reflected in the strong religious representation of the 2023 government. The poll identified a nuanced view that has been exacerbated by the Deri decision, the policy of the government and its Justice Minister, Yariv Levin who intends to reduce the powers of the Supreme Court over the countries duly elected government. The opposition have conveniently characterized the moment as a democratic constitutional crises, but they have little control because the Israeli public already granted the coalition government the most significant mandate in recent memory. 

International pressure on this constitutional issue may be muted, but nations will rise against Israel's increasingly religious society who will be motivated to deliver a unified domestic response to any foreign anti-Israel sentiment. The poll suggests a rising desire from religious and secular communities to elevate their elected liberal and conservative Rabbis, of Israel's synagogues, to the political arena to declare and stamp Israel's unique brand of justice and sovereignty into its system of government. The Deri decision opened the window for these duly elected Rabbis to extend their constitutional voice to promote their ascension to an upper house and transform Israel's present unicameral Knesset. 

In a final blow to the decaying British structure, Israel's government and democracy is on track to return its indigenous way of government: A bicameral Knesset with its upper house of elected Torah Sages, Rabbis, a 'Sanhedrin' with the constitutional authority to approve secular and religious law, to forge one body of law for the entire nation and prepare to realize its destiny as a sovereign, theocratic democracy. 

 

Why Hide Israel's Exodus Evidence?

The Amarna diplomatic letters exposed vassal relationships between field commanders who acted as local kings and Pharaoh their Egyptian ruler. Commanders of field garrisons defended Egyptian territories and at times expressed conflicting interests that triggered a spate of letter writing. Victories, defeats or political turmoil weighed heavily on the writings.

The tablets appear to have been buried with Akhenaten at El Amarna, but they are not the originals, mostly made of clay from areas east of the Jordan River, they are deemed authentic, diplomatic copies. One such letter #254 titled "Neither Rebel nor Delinquent" by Labaya, commander of the Samaria region from Sakmu the biblical city of Shechem, exposed serious allegations against him for having surrendered land to the Habiru (see Deuteronomy 11:30 and Genesis 12:6). This and the related letters further south at Uru-Salem, biblical Jerusalem discuss battles waged by the Habiru. 

Military correspondence from Canaan, in Egypt it was known as Retenju 

Dating and sources of the Amarna letters are thought to span Egyptian Pharaoh's Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, through possibly Smenkhkare or Tutankhamun around 150 years. These Pharaoh's may have overlapped the Israelite presence, enslavement in or exile from Egypt, early Canaanite wars and land resettlement. However, published chronologies have left much open to speculation, here we propose a resolution: The Labaya tablet #254 and others reference Pharaoh in his 32nd year of reign leaving only Amenhotep III who held power for 36-38 years during the Amarna period. According to the classic chronology Amenhotep III died in 1351 BCE.

The Bible describes Israel's 40 year sojourn after leaving Egypt, before it entered the land of Canaan where Joshua, the Israelite leader is said to have ruled 32 years after that. If there is a Biblical relationship to the Habiru, even if only some Habiru were Hebrew Israelite's raiding Canaan then letter #254 must have been written during the overlap of Amenhotep III and Joshua's 32 year reign, which according to the Biblical record ended in 1245 BCE. To align Amenhotep III and Joshua, the 100 year gap between the Bible and the Amarna records needs to be closed.

The eldest son of Amenhotep III, Prince Thutmose, died in the third decade of his fathers reign. Stepping in, his younger brother Amenhotep IV (also known as Akhenaten) became the "strange" Pharaoh as depicted in uncharacteristically abstract art from his reign. From evidence at Amarna we know the mummified elite of Egypt had a poor state of health despite opposite representations reflected in artwork of the time. Amarna depicts how distance enabled diplomatic façade, appearance of control and power, yet reality was always different. For Akhenaten losing control of Retjenu (Canaan) may have been his diplomatic inheritance and retrospective downfall in Egyptian art.

From the evidence, toward the end of the 13th century BCE, Papyrus Anastasi III, Merneptah Stele (1203 BCE), Egyptian late bronze age temple at Jerusalem's École biblique and tombs north and north-west of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah we learn about a prolonged Egyptian commitment and interest in Canaan during the approximately 250 years of military activity from Amenhotep III to Merneptah. In addition to its strategic and regional benefits, a long term commitment to hold Canaan may have been etched in the psyche of Egyptian leaders by Egypt's founder and first Pharaoh Khem (the ancient name given to Egypt km.t). According to the Biblical record Khem (Biblical Ham) may have incestuously fathered Canaan which explains why Canaan had no place in Egypt. The place name Canaan is common throughout Egyptian and Biblical records.

This 250 year, most tumultuous military period directly overlaps Israelite tribes who were displacing local Canaanite leaders and populations, long connected with Egypt, as they settled their indigenous land and entitlements east and west of the Jordan River. This re-settlement spanned a period of 300 years from Joshua until King David culminating the Israelite inheritance consistent with biblical teachings and tribal agreements.

In one letter, Adoni-Tzedek pleaded to convince Akhenaten to take the faster coastal route to rescue his dire situation in Jerusalem. And a letter, early in the reign of Akhenaten showed that the coast road was still open (pg278) which King Dusratta (Mitanni Empire) had written to his son-in-law Akhenaten twenty years later, but no help appears to have been sent. If this letter #254 describes the Biblical events that took place in 1273 BCE, at the beginning of Joshua's reign, which included a raid on Jerusalem, the Egyptian chronology, immediately prior to the Amarna period, would have to be revised forward by around ~100 years. This would be difficult for classical Egyptologists to digest. Joshua must then have overlapped Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, which if we wind back 40 years, would make Thutmose IV the prime candidate at the time of the Israelite Exodus led by Moses. 

Even though the lower Galilee was, for some few years subdued, under Philistia and Syria it was reconquered by Rameses II, whose battle relief also mentions "Shalem" (Jerusalem). However, historians have revealed that neither Rameses II or his garrisons ever entered the Judæan mountains because they were impassable for chariots, Egypt's supreme weapon of war. Seemingly, Jerusalem had been abandoned by Rameses II as well.

The events placed in these time frames may help us to better understand Egypt's political events, that pre-dated Moses, when "Pithom and Rameses", Egyptian cities built by Israelite slaves, may have underwritten the economic and political impetus that promoted the "House of Rameses" to ultimately obtain the status of Pharaoh over all of Egypt. By the time Rameses I and II became Pharaoh's it was already the latter half of Israel's 300 year resettlement of Canaan as recorded in The Book of Judges.

Often overlooked is the earliest recorded use of the Hebrew language by Eber (great-grandson of Noah) preceding Biblical Abraham, whose father, Terach and their extended families continued to live in Haran, northern Syria. They were the Ivri or Ibri also likely referred to as Habiru, but their various lineages were not Israelite. Regardless, the Habiru referred in the Amarna letters are certainly those Israelites, the Hebrew speakers, who had arrived from Egypt to conquer and re-settle Canaan.

Jerusalem's Critical Evidence

Matsevah or standing stone found in room2 

Water channel outlets in room 1 and 3

Seldom does a "terminus post quem", the earliest date an item came into existence, and a "terminus ante quem", the latest, perfectly sandwich an artifact to define its absolute archaeological age. 

In ancient Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah's eastern slope, a crucial study by Weizmann Institute, Tel Aviv University and Israel Antiquities Authority dated evidence in a water channel, beneath and above a plaster layer that was built on top of clay-rich, virgin soil in a natural bedrock cavity. 

Directly beneath the plaster (its earliest date), small charcoal flecks were dated separately (sample  9965 and 10293) between 1615–1545 BCE, a "terminus post-quem" for plaster in the channel. At the end of the channel, above the plaster (the latest date) several grey and white laminations were found with charred material (sample 9964 and 10292), "ante-quem", understood to represent the channel was last used between 1535 and 1445 BCE.

The water channel was only ever used, during these maximum 80 to 100 years, to propel water (by gravity) onto the bedrock floor of at least one of two rooms (1 and 3) of the Temple Zero complex immediately below (east of) Area U. The water channel was not used previously nor has it been used since. Slaughtered animals would have frequently been processed and offered as a sacrifice, thus requiring water be flushed via the channel to clean blood and excrement. Almost 600 years later similar hydraulic systems were engineered and used in the first and second temples further up the mountain.  

 Water Channel in blue -South (Top)

According to Biblical chronology Jacob and his family arrived on Mount Moriah in 1553 BCE at that time he also became known as Israel. 30 years later they left the region, for Egypt in 1523 BCE, where they lived in exile for 210 years before the nation of Israel journeyed back to their land. Based on the strata position of evidence, closest to plaster in the channel, a more precise 30 year use of the drainage channel would overlap Jacobs final 30 years in the region. This finding  becomes spectacular because of its exciting context to the Temple Zero location.

Strata of W and V samples closest to plaster.

In the Biblical context of Area U, the rock-cut-rooms of Temple Zero and the Gihon Spring, Bible commentators relate events of Adam, Noah, Shem or Malchi-Tzedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua, King David and subsequent kings. Spanning thousands of years, the area on Mount Moriah is also referred by many names including; Salem, Beit El, Yireh (Yireh-Salem), Luz, Tzion, Jebus, City of David and Jerusalem. 

Temple Zero South (Top)

Immediately after King Solomon, King Jeroboam mis-directed and split the nation in part by leveraging confusion over Jacob's Beit El. Therefore, his actions and motivations must be understood before one can truly appreciate the magnitude of  discoveries being made at Temple Zero, Jerusalem. The recently discovered, possible City of Ai (associated with Beit El) is located just 1.3 kilometers east of  Temple Zero, resolves Jeroboam's Bethel ruse, 17km north, establishing Jerusalem's Temple Zero the exclusive, common Beit El of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-8, 13:3-4) and Jacob (Genesis 28:11, 35:14).

By aligning the city of Ai and Biblical events with the 100 year overlapping use of the drainage channel, confidence rises that Temple Zero is the location Jacob erected the recently discovered matzevah on which he made a covenant, to which he returned and accepted upon himself the name "Israel". 

For the modern nation to rediscover the original beacon, erected by Jacob on which he accepted the name of their national identity would be nothing short of miraculous, perhaps too much for the archaeological fraternity to acknowledge.

 

Jerusalem's Middle Bronze Yeshiva

    

Reconciling the Biblical record with archaeology is complex. Sometimes it exposes ambiguities in  interpretations of various commentaries. In contrast to mainstream commentators, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba clarified Genesis 25:17 that Jacob spent 14 years in the school of Shem and Ever after leaving his father Isaac, but before arriving at his uncle Laban, who lived in Haran (northern Syria). This distinction helped align the archaeology on the eastern slope of ancient Jerusalem. 

An event described by the word "va-yi[Ph][G]ah" explained that Jacob "stumbled" upon a certain "place". The place is unanimously considered to be on Mount Moriah, the mountain on which ancient Jerusalem was built. It was also named Beit-El (House of God), which became common and caused mainstream commentators to bestow a super-rational explanation on the "va-yi[Ph][G]ah" place.

All commentators associate the "va-yi[Ph][G]ah" place with the landmark that Adam, Noah, Malchi-Tzedek (Shem), Abraham, Isaac and Jacob identified with the holy mountain. The Bible calls it SaLem (completion), and Abraham called it Yi-Reh (vision), in combination YiReh-SaLem became Jerusalem meaning 'complete vision'. Today we may loosely infer it as that flash of insight that crystalizes a 20-20 vision on the subject in the recipients mind. 

Jacob stumbled on the place, then experienced a powerful dream, a vision that he memorialized using a standing-stone as his permanent covenant to build and dedicate the House of God. Right after that he hid for 14 years in the school of his ancient relatives Shem and his great-grandson Ever learning the folklore and ancient mystical secrets before he departed for Haran. 

Jacob's standing-stone also known as a matzevah?

It follows the events that caused him to react; "How awesome is this place!" also attracted and compelled him to stay on the holy mountain where the school of Shem and Ever may have been located. Recent excavations in the cavernous bedrock of the east facing slope of Mount Moriah have revealed Middle Bronze Age facilities that may very well have accommodated residents and students who may have frequented the area.    

In Finding Zion, I provide a detailed account of the discoveries in the immediate vicinity of the "va-yi[Ph][G]ah" place, adjacent to the Gihon Spring where much of the Biblical account is being clarified through archaeological discoveries and insightful interpretations.

Democracy vs. Sovereignty

How certain is the future of Jewish sovereignty over Israel? When asked, most Jews will respond without any real understanding of its implications. They may mean Israel should never fall into the hands of a non-Jewish group or nation that doesn't identify themselves as Jews. But, how can such an outcome be assured given the democracy Israel’s modern state claims in its now fungible Basic Law of 1948. Surely a democracy means that all people living within a nation’s borders must enjoy an equal right to vote? If so, how long will Israel hedge its, river to the sea, border claims against ‘two states’ which have prevented resident aliens from diluting its democracy and Jewish sovereignty?

This thorny question is often the root cause of extreme disagreement among Jews. Some religious fundamentalists claim Israel does not require a state, that Israel is a spiritual ideal defined in the psyche of its people. On the other hand those that rely on Israel’s State law and its response to International Law focus on the physical definition of national borders as determined by the prevailing consensus. The diversity presents the dilemma of a nation seeking a sovereign guarantee for their Jewish, ‘democratic’ ideal.

Under the two-state-solution, once the shared dream of its President Shimon Peres, Israel would have been divided into a Jewish and a non-Jewish state under the Palestinian Authority. However, after significant resistance on both sides, the internationally sponsored idea has failed. In the midst of the political fury, legal opposition and terror Israel equivocates as it grapples with the threat a single state may pose to its Jewish ideal.

Regardless of Israel’s present, positive Jewish demographic trend, risk to Jewish sovereignty, in a single democratic state, from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea, that incorporates all resident aliens, is too much for the Jewish Israeli electorate to bare. Alternatively, giving up security control to an enemy occupying land controlled, but not presently annexed by Israel is controversial, daunting and impractical. The untenable advance of terrorism and global rhetoric is often more alarming to Israel's Jewish electorate than the prospect of losing its Jewish majority in a future single state. The status quo is ineffective, a drain on national and individual prosperity. 

Who can guarantee Jewish sovereignty? The Supreme Court are disinterested and international pressure is growing. The question is increasingly serious, rising up in the minds of Israel's Jewish constituents. Existing mechanisms within the states legal construct are limited, but there is one that fully satisfies the essential guarantee. Compare the United Kingdom with its King and Church of England, Denmark with its Evangelical Lutheran constitution, Italy with its Vatican, Iran with its Ayatollah, Saudi Arabia with its King and Mecca. Although some of the western states identify as religious, their constitutions separate church and state. Similarly, Israel has an inherent solution to its Jewish sovereignty problem, a model that makes sense, is already partially active and works.

Whether secular or religious, the vast majority of Israel’s Jewish electorate periodically participate in religious services of a local synagogue. Through these community synagogues, elected, municipally appointed City Rabbis are nominated by a legally established Electoral Committee that represents communal religious interests. One of those interests is Jewish sovereignty guaranteed by national rabbinical representation in a future Senate or Upper House of Israel’s Knesset (parliament). That may be a confronting prospect to many, but the national benefits for all, Jewish or non-Jewish citizens and alien-residents, are presently misunderstood and underappreciated. 

Many popular elected City Rabbi’s^[1] are self-motivated to empower community voices through their electoral framework and elevate it to Israel's national political stage. Others require replacement by younger, more active and knowledgeable representatives. Rabbinical representation in a bicameral government of a single Jewish state is complex, but societal demands are rising as a result of dedicated grass roots participation. Town hall meetings, community activities, representations organized by appointed City Rabbis and leaders are and will be hallmarks that signify the success of this future movement. Education and awareness that a Sovereign Rabbinical body, elected to the Upper House of Israel's parliament, can truly be representative and liberating will underly the ground swell of this Jewish indigenous ideal. 

Shifting government priority from its present emphasis on defense, energy and technology to also develop labor intensive domestic industry around Israel's rich cultural principles will be essential to satisfy Israel’s growing constituent underclass. Political parties that prioritize development of sustainable industries capable of employing a significant portion of the unemployed and non-participating^[2] workforce will benefit. Israel’s indigenous cultural prerogative, including toward the optimal growth of cultural tourism, is a principle that will serve the prosperity of Jewish and non-Jewish populations of a single, sovereign, Jewish state. The development of skills^[3] directed to economic benefits associated with Jewish sovereignty will ultimately deliver better financial distribution to the broader population.

Objectors may struggle to digest such a prospect: A democratic-theocracy that stacks its constitutional Jewish sovereign deck in favor of its Jewish population by its Jewish religious leaders in an upper house of its government. Jewish sovereignty looms large, but the embrace of non-conventional models, inspired by the ancient past, would for the first time in 2000 years also establish an authoritative, representative religious body licensed to decide its ancient religious laws. 

---

[1] http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/israellaws/fulltext/jewishreliserviceslaw.htm 

[2] http://www.financeisrael.mof.gov.il/FinanceIsrael/Docs/En/The_Israeli_Economy.pdf 

[3] http://skills.oecd.org/supplyskills/documents/21abclabourforceparticipationbygenderandage2010.html 

Angel of Death Trickery?

Jerusalem's City of David and Temple Mount

Renowned commentators have stated that the Foundation Stone (Jacob's stone) was located in the Holy of Holies (of the first and second Temple) and that the 12 stones, from which it was formed were at the precise site that was, is and will be the site of the permanent holy altar. How do we understand this apparent contradiction? 

The altar of Jerusalem's Holy Temple once facilitated individual and national sacrifices and will do so again in future. During its inauguration alone, some 120,000 sheep were slaughtered for it and the feasting that followed! In its location, on the Temple Mount, it served the nation for almost 1000 years, with only a short disruption, but it did not survive the ancient Roman destruction and onslaught at the beginning of the Common Era (CE). 

Moses Maimonides (known as Rambam), the pre-eminent Rabbi and commentator in his Mishneh Torah on Jewish Law of The Chosen Temple tells us that the precise place Abraham once bound (Akeida) and offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice is the same place of the future altar. Further, that the place modern Jews consider the location of the Temples' Holy of Holies is established by tradition. The ambiguity about these locations are reflected accurately by the Rambam.

The commentators expounded that 12 stones of the Akeida altar (or its ramp) were used by Jacob, when he slept adjacent to Akeida the night he dreamed of a stairway to heaven. God fused those 12 stones into a single rock, which He infused with the foundation of the earth. That became known as The Foundation Stone or 'Even Ha-Shtiah', which, by tradition was located in the Holy of Holies. In context the various accounts do not reconcile, primarily because the Holy of Holies of the first and second temple was some distance from and not adjacent to the altar. Therefore, The Foundation Stone (comprising Jacob's stone) could not have been located at or adjacent to the site of Akeida.

For his book, "In Ishmael's House", Martin Gilbert researched passages about the Jews written exclusively in Islamic works. In 638 CE Calif Omar raided Jerusalem, among his men was a Jewish convert to Islam, Ka'b al-Ahbar (Hebrew name was Akiva). Almost 600 years after the Romans had destroyed the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary and its holy altar, Calif Omar requested Ka'b point out the place where the Holy of Holies once stood. After some misgivings, Ka'b identified the spot where the shrine to Calif Omar was erected. Today that shrine is known as the Dome of The Rock, the golden dome that occupies a prominent location on the Temple Mount. That particular location has no special designation in fact or Jewish law, only that it is universally accepted and by Jewish tradition associated with the western most wall of the temple mount.

Detailed legal arguments do not contradict that King Solomon built the first temple altar, Chronicles (II 3:1) on the same site King David had previously built his altar when he made restitution for his wrongful census of the nation. One opinion suggests David's prophecy aligned his altar with Akeida. However, the Bible states the site was located at the feet of the 'angel of death' that was standing between heaven and earth with its sword suspended over Ancient Jerusalem and that prophet Gad caused David to buy the site from the Jebusite king and bring an offering. The detailed arguments are important because the Bible relates the altar was built for David's personal sin and benefit, not for that of the nation. At that time the mobile, national altar was still in service in Givon and David made it crystal clear this was his personal account; 2 Samuel 24:17: “I alone am guilty, I alone have done wrong; but these poor sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand fall upon me and my father’s house!” 

Careful archaeological excavation west of the Gihon Spring, on Mount Moriah's east facing slope, has revealed evidence that the precise site of Akeida may have been hidden under fallen ground cover of the mountain for more than 1000 years. Then, 2600 years ago it was uncovered and immediately buried by constructors of city walls indicating the site has been concealed for 3500-3600 years.   

Stone of Israel, Jacob's Stone or Foundation Stone?

Whether David and Solomon were tricked by the 'angel of death' into selecting a site different to Akeida or this new evidence points to the real Akeida, we must objectively consider all the arguments and commentaries we have learned and prepare ourselves for new possibilities on Holy Mount Moriah.

Jerusalem's Temple Zero Underground

Temple Zero Excavation (north end)

Temple Zero Excavation (south end)

More than 500 years before King David Temple Zero, in Ancient Jerusalem's City of David had been constructed, used regularly and completely buried by falling groundcover. Whether King David ever re-discovered Temple Zero, or King Uzziah or Hezekiah were the first to re-discover it is debated here. Recently excavated elements, located on east and west adjacencies of Temple Zero, under virgin soil, in an ash layer above bedrock and a defensive wall prove the hypothesis that King David never discovered it. The discovery presents Temple Zero as a legitimate contender for the altar of the future temple in Jerusalem.

  

Seeds of wheat and barley, in a delicate 2m long, 1cm thick layer of ash, 5cm above bedrock, lay undisturbed from Middle Bronze Age through the Iron Age period of King David until King Uzziah and remained in place until their recent extraction. This delicate ash layer was preserved only because soft dirt had accumulated above it. In the ash, one seed was preserved under the wall of a late Iron Age building the other under collapsed rocks from surrounding Iron Age constructions. These seeds were carbon dated ~3290 years before the present (using 1950 as the reference age) and corelated to Middle Bronze Age archaeology of 1605-1510 BCE. 

Area U in pink (also map below).
Western edge of Temple Zero (greyed) in center of pink border

Water channel (Blue)

Iron Age wall constructors would first probe soft dirt until they discovered underlying bedrock sufficient to support wall construction. Then, they would remove soil and other moveable elements until they located the full length of bedrock necessary to support the wall width and length. On that they built their wall.

The Iron Age buildings were constructed after the wall, along Temple Zero's westernmost edge of Area U (map below) on the elevated edge of its rock-cut-rooms. The bedrock edge drops down the sheer east facing walls, of hollowed bedrock rooms 1.5-2m to the bedrock floor of the Temple Zero complex. Well before the Iron Age, the hollowed out rooms had once been filled with accumulated sand or natural dirt, that fell down the slope burying Temple Zero to a depth of  at least 1.5-2m. 

Red dots mark carbon dated evidence
  Iron Age walls (red) on western edge
of Temple Zero's rock-cut-rooms

Heights above sea level

Less than 10 meters east, further down slope toward the valley, additional evidence was found, between bedrock and leveling rocks supporting a Middle Bronze Age wall (red dots on the image above-right). This indicates earth below the supporting rocks of the walls base had been used 150-200 years before the seeds trapped in the ash layer (further to the west). However, around 1m above the bedrock additional evidence, taken from the walls' mortar, revealed entrapped seeds of a similar date as the ash layer seeds. Therefore, the walls foundation layers were constructed on a base above bedrock more than 150 years earlier, shown in the image below. 

Large rock placed on smaller supporting rocks
near the bedrock base, site of earlier dated evidence

Curiously the study identified an unusual 17th century gap in evidence, indicating that the entire area went out of use during the 50-75 years that preceded the ash layer seeds and the building of this small Middle Bronze Age wall.  

This evidence at the rock-cut-rooms of Temple Zero strongly points to a natural burial, by slippage, wash, wind and accumulation. It is widely known to archaeologists that a location on a steep slope, such as this site, on the east of Mount Moriah would naturally accumulate sufficient dirt to be entirely covered over within 5 years. Complete burial would naturally obfuscate the existence of Temple Zero's rock-cut-rooms.

Since Temple Zero was buried underground sometime in the 17th century it would not have been used for active worship during the 10th century reign of King David because the evidence in the drainage channel was undisturbed. The next time all of Temple Zero's rock-cut-rooms were exposed was during the bedrock discovery phase, required for construction of Jerusalem's massive eastern defensive wall, in the 8th century leading up to or during the reign of King Uzziah. Almost 1000 years after the seeds became trapped in the ash layer, constructors of the massive defensive wall discovered, preserved and re-buried Temple Zero where it remained for another 2600 years until it was recently discovered in 2011.

The implications of this study are important because they provide a credible reason why Temple Zero was never discovered by King David and how the fragile matzevah (Stone of Israel), located in Temple Zero survived in its original place, preserved in soft sand, in tact all these years. One can only imagine what King Uzziah’s Iron Age wall constructors must have thought when they discovered and preserved it for our generation?

Finding Zion!

A decade of persistent effort by the El Ad foundation, The City of David and archaeologists from Israel's Antiquities Authority has produced sensational results on the eastern slope of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah. More than ever before, evidence and context have reduced events to a narrow range of comprehensible theories. Now, we are left to ponder the most perplexing question of all...

The Gihon Spring, near the Kidron Valley floor was ancient Jerusalem's only perpetual water source. It sustained Paleolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age populations who lived in proximity to the valley until around 4000-3800 years ago. In the Middle Bronze Age, commensurate with Biblical Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob populations migrated 50+ vertical meters further up the steep east facing slope to live on the mountains' ridge. For these occupants, access and secure passage of water, from the spring became crucial to successful survival. 

Mount Moriah, one rock

During the past 15 years several key discoveries have informed our knowledge of the eastern slope: 

1. Cave K 

Recent excavations identified a tightly packed, richly layered floor that should reveal information about the historical and chronological use of the cave. Work, presently underway indicates a usage spanning terminal Iron Age back to the Bronze Age. The cave was an important accommodation for occupants of the lower mountain. The cave exit/entrance, on its north-west end once connected with Passage XVIII that runs west, connecting Cave K with a rock-cut-temple around 10 vertical meters higher up the slope. 

North Entrance

Level crossing, from Cave K over the lower bedrock once provided convenient access to water from the Gihon Spring.

2. Passage XVIII

The remnant of this bedrock passage climbs up from the roof level of Cave K to the rock-cut-temple, due west, at a steep grade 10m further up the eastern face. The Cave K end of the passage appears to have been quarried or fissured and breaks lower level access to passage XVIII. Organic materials, found in mortar of a wall built in this passage was carbon dated to 3700-3500 years ago. This evidence aligned with similar materials discovered in a drainage channel along the west boundary immediately behind the rock-cut-temple. The organic material indicated that construction on the passage had occurred sometime during this period and provides evidence of its use during the middle bronze age.

3. Rock-Cut-Temple

Excavation to expose Rock-Cut-Temple

This is arguably the most fascinating complex of Mount Moriah's eastern face. The temple cut in the  rock contains all of the necessary elements for worship, similar to the practices that followed in King Solomon's First Temple as widely document in ancient Jewish texts. The features include (looking West); 

Matzevah in the cabinet (left) - Altar Platform, liquids channel (right)

Matzevah

Altar platform and liquids channel

A Matzevah or standing stone was forbidden by Biblical law for use in any Jewish worship. Therefore, the practice ceased around 3300 years ago, some 300 years before King David arrived on Jerusalem's Mount Moriah. Prior to that, use of a matzevah was permitted as referred in Biblical Jacob and has been widely reported in archaeology. However, this humble matzevah is unique in all Israeli archaeology. The altars' liquids channel and altar platform once supported a stone altar on which animal sacrifices were offered.

To the left (south) of the matzevah 'V' cuts in the bedrock used for slaughtering, processing and preparing animal sacrifices. The room also contains a sunken mortar for crushing grains. To the right (north) of the altar platform an olive press for preparing pure olive oil, of the highest grade to be used for anointing and preparing baked sacrificial offerings.

North over the olive press

Looking north over the oil press, passage XIX is terminated by Wall 108 (see map below). The northern wall W108, of the double wall was excavated and dated along with W109 to the Middle Bronze Age. It is still unknown as to why the double wall was built and this remains one of the more perplexing elements of the temple complex.  

4. Wall 108 and 109

The double wall complex was one of the most challenging constructions in the City of David and certainly on the eastern face. Massive boulders stacked to a height of up to 5 meters had to be hauled up, or lowered down the slope and precisely placed. It was a serious construction requiring a labor force greater than the size of the entire local population of the mountain. It is presently anticipated that the passage between the double walls was sealed, a ziggurat type structure that led worshipers on an ascent to passage XIX where they would turn left (south) and proceed to the rock-cut-temple complex. 

A recent discovery (see image below) confirmed that the double walls abutt passage XIX, but that W108 (north, top of picture) extended through the passage further west blocking north-south access. W109 meets the passage and would have ensured foot traffic, between the walls, was guided to the south along passage XIX toward the rock-cut-temple complex.  

Looking North, at the top, large steps
between W108 (north) and W109

5. Defensive wall 

As confirmed by surviving organic material, 1000 years after the rock-cut-temple were last used, toward the end of the iron age, a defensive city wall was built on the eastern face of the mountain. The wall was constructed over the rock-cut-temple and soft sand (discovered in 2011) was used to fill the spaces between the wall and the bedrock to protect the matzevah from damage by the heavy rocks of the wall. That decision, most likely by King Uzziah or Hezekiah, preserved the matzevah for 2600 years until it was discovered in-situ by archaeologist Eli Shukron in 2011. However, the wall constructors cleared the rock-cut-temple artifacts leaving only a small amount of Middle Bronze age pottery in the room adjacent to the altar.

Significant scale wall (looking north).
 Top right of the wall intersects W108.

6. Question

If the rock-cut-temple was last used around 3500 years ago (the time of the surviving organic matter, particularly the remnant discovered in the drainage channel) it is conceivable the entire rock-cut-temple lay buried under earth and silt, unused for almost 1000 years before Hezekiah's wall was built, 2600 years ago in the lead up to the destruction of the first temple. The wall constructors would have exposed the rock-cut-temple, its artifacts and the matzevah causing the King at that time to decide what next? We now know that the defensive wall was constructed over the rock-cut-temple, but the constructors preserved the matzevah indicating respect and honor. If Hezekiah was king at the time and believed the matzevah were an object of idolatry his constructors would certainly have destroyed it.

On this evidence we must ask whether King David, who was compelled to this mountain, ever discovered the rock-cut-temple that existed 700 years before he became King?

2 Samuel 5:7–9 tells us; David conquered the “fortress of Zion that is the City of David,” after which he is said to have built “from the Millo inward”. The fortress David captured (thought to be the Spring Tower, see map above including W108 and W109) gave him full control over the precious water supply lines inward to the Gihon Spring. That's all it took to conquer the city 50m up the hill that was dependent on the Spring. 

Did the 700 year legacy of priesthood and ancestral history, at the rock-cut-temple motivate David to capture and locate Zion? Did he ever find it?

Hezekiah's Dilemma

Hezekiah's Seal

I was surprised to read a sequence in Talmud, Sanhedrin (95-97) that connects several mysteries related to contraction of land, suspension of the sun's orbit, Jerusalem and a messianic prophecy. 

First in the sequence, Avishai saved King David's life. (95a:8) But, Tanach and midrash inform us that after King David's sinful census 70,000 in Israel's north were killed, the next day, on the summit of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, when the angel of death was poised to destroy Jerusalem, Avishai was sacrificed to pacify the angel and prevent Jerusalem's destruction. At the foot of the angel of death David offered his personal sacrifice and that site would become the future altar of Jerusalem's first temple. This story is reflected in the 'sword over Jerusalem', words that are said each year at Passover tables the world over.  

Next, Talmud steps the reader back ~500 years to the time Jacob returned and stumbled on 'the place' his fathers prayed (95b:1). By this, midrashim and commentaries we know 'the place' to be the Beit El of Abraham and Jacob, the Akeida (binding) of Isaac, which according to Jewish law will be the place of the future temple altar.

Then, the reader steps forward ~1000 years to learn of Hezekiah's failure to obtain his Messianic designation after Sancheirev attempted to destroy Jerusalem (95b:14). In other places we learn that Hezekiah' failed because he did not immediately attribute the saving of Jerusalem to Divine intervention. Then, Sancheirev was killed by his sons (age 64 - c.681BCE) and Nebuchadnezzar seized control of the Babylonian-Assyrian alliance. Around 100 years after Sancheirev's failed attempt, Nebuchadnezzar dispatched Nebuzaradan and destroyed Jerusalem (96b:4).

Among the brutal detail of Jerusalem's destruction we learn Merodach-Baladan, who preceded Sancheirev, as king of Babylonia, (96a:10) wrote a letter to encourage Hezekiah shortly after he recovered from a near-fatal illness. Young Nebuchadnezzar was the scribe to Merodach-Baladan, but did not draft nor agree with the content of the letter. Hezekiah lived another 15 years (died aged 52 c.687 BCE), around the age of 37 he would have received the letter. 

Finally the Talmud continues a detailed conversation about the Messianic redemption following a sabbatical year (97a:1-10).

In a recent archaeological discovery, the defensive city wall that Hezekiah built to protect Jerusalem from the wrath of Sancheirev's doomed army was uncovered, but it presented an intriguing puzzle about the date of its construction. 

We asked whether the onset of Hezekiah's illness coincided with the city wall construction? If so, the constructors would have commenced during his early 30's, c.707 BCE and discovery of rock-cut-rooms, in the path of the wall construction may have presented a serious dilemma? Carbon dated evidence suggests, for more than five centuries the rock-cut-rooms lay buried below meters of dirt and debris supporting their spontaneous discovery that probably delayed construction until a decision about their treatment was reached. 

Why the dilemma? Well, one thing is for sure, the flimsy matzevah discovered in (2010 by Eli Shukron), in the rock-cut-rooms was preserved by Hezekiah's constructors and remains a declaration of its holy, non-idolatrous status. If not they would certainly have destroyed it, instead they preserved it in soft sand and built the defensive city wall alongside it to the east. We will never know what other  Bronze Age artefacts may have also been discovered at that time (Eli Shukron found some), but we see, from Hezekiah's actions the matzevah was important.

The fact the rock-cut-room temple complex preceded Solomon's temple surely would have prompted Hezekiah to ask why Solomon's temple was built in a different location, further up the mountain? How would Hezekiah, the one designated for messianic status answer that question? Was this 'the place' Jacob stumbled, where he dreamed of a stairway to heaven, set his matzevah (pillar), the place spanning time back to Akeida and beyond to Malchi-Tzedek and the original temple of Jerusalem? 

Walk in Hezekiah's shoes and ponder the depth of his dilemma.