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

 

King David Searched For This Temple of His Forefathers

In the early years of his kingship, David sensed it, but never knew that right under his feet was the temple, on Mount Moriah, where his forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob once worshipped. Instead, he spent most of his life searching for the place to build the nations temple.  

For 7 years we progressed down through ~7 meters of dirt, excavating materials in each of the time bound layers on our way to the bedrock below. Finally, compressed destruction layers revealed the archaeological motherload, critical remnants that had been buried for thousands of years. Several Iron Age buildings rested along the western bedrock edge that descended into the void of six rock-cut-rooms immediately below to the east.

Pottery discovered in Iron Age buildings

But, pottery and other items paled in comparison to the secrets that were trapped closest to bedrock and in mortar from the walls. The organic materials were our true prize and samples 9181 and 9962 were the most puzzling. These two samples had been trapped in an ash layer, under the stone wall of building W15048 was sample 9181 and under a fallen rock nearby 9962. 

"Next to the channel/installation, at the level of up to 10 cm above the bedrock, a thin ca. 1-cm horizontal layer of ash was identified. In the west, where sample RTD-9962 was taken, it was covered by a collapse of medium size stones, and to the east, dated by RTD-9181, it continued beneath a floor of an Iron age building. The ash horizon could be traced for ca. 2 m and it dates between 1605 and 1510 BC." | Weizmann/Cambridge.

Two IAA reference Maps overlayed. The red dots mark sample 9181 and 9962.

What's so special about these samples, you may ask?  For 15 years archaeologists sought to discover more about the bedrock rooms. When were they constructed, what were the order of construction, when did they go out of use and one of the most perplexing questions of all, did King David and Solomon ever learn of there existence. 

Approximately 600 years before King David

For nearly 1000 years, through King David and Solomon, samples 9181 and 9962 survived in 5cm of ash on top of 10cm of soil, until later they were sealed by an Iron Age building and a fallen rock. Their deposit was followed by abandonment and burial by soil falling from the natural slope, most likely during the well known 17th century settlement gap. Later structures, of the 13th century, early Iron Age, were built on top of compacted soil protecting the samples and additions to those structures continued their protection.

Immediately southwest of these samples, a Middle Bronze Age water channel and reservoir was constructed and last used in 1535 BCE for 10 years during the last 30 years Jacob lived in that region before Israel immigrated to Egypt. 250 years later, during the early Iron Age the tribes of Israel returned. Finally, 300 years later King David conquered and occupied the Jebusite city on Mount Moriah. More than one hundred years after King David the Iron Age structures were constructed and ultimately secured these samples.

From the evidence we must conclude that during the time of David and Solomon the ash layer in which 9181 and 9962 lay was not disturbed by foot traffic or the Middle Bronze ash layers would have been disrupted. Further that construction over these samples was light and inconsequential because the building walls did not require direct contact with bedrock for support. 

During King David’s reign, the rock-cut-rooms may have been entirely buried by natural debris and soil from the steep slope or perhaps the local residents purposely obfuscated the temple site. Either way it’s increasingly clear that once the temple went and stayed out of use sometime shortly after 1535 BCE.

The video below demonstrates the evolution of Mount Moriah and the obfuscation of its eastern slope.

Ai - Your Time is Up!

City of Ai Discovery (IAA)

Introduction

The conventional identification of biblical Bethel with the modern Arab village of Beitin, approximately 12–13 km north of Jerusalem, has long influenced archaeological and biblical scholarship. Similarly, the city of Ai has traditionally been associated with Et-Tell, located just east of Beitin. However, recent archaeological findings and a reevaluation of biblical geography suggest the need for a reassessment. This proposal centers Bethel at the rock-cut temple site on the eastern slope of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, corresponding to the Bethel of Jacob's vision in Genesis, and positions Ai east of Ras al-'Amud, adjacent to Bethany (al-‘Azariya) and Jabal Batin al-Hawa.

Part I: Reframing Bethel

1. Bethel of Jacob: Mount Moriah’s Eastern Slope

The rock-cut temple complex on the eastern slope of Mount Moriah, facing the Kidron Valley, has yielded Middle Bronze Age material remains, including cultic features consistent with ritual use. Traditional Jewish sources have long associated Mount Moriah with divine encounters (Genesis 22), and the architecture of the site resembles high places described in the Hebrew Bible. This supports the hypothesis that Jacob’s Bethel, where he dreamed of a ladder to heaven (Genesis 28:10–22), could have been located here rather than 13 km to the north.

2. Confusion Introduced by Beitin

The modern identification of Beitin as Bethel dates to 19th-century explorers such as Edward Robinson. While the phonetic similarity is compelling, the chronological and cultic evidence is less definitive. Beitin shows Iron Age occupation, but the Middle Bronze Age cultic prominence seen at Mount Moriah’s slope is largely absent. This suggests that Beitin may instead be the later Bethel of Jeroboam, where he established a royal shrine with a golden calf (1 Kings 12:28–29), reflecting a secondary and political use of the name Bethel.

Part II: Reconsidering Ai

1. Biblical Ai: East of Bethel

The book of Joshua (7–8) locates Ai east of Bethel. If Bethel is relocated to Mount Moriah’s eastern slope, then Ai must be sought in the adjacent eastern territories — specifically, Silwan, Ras al-‘Amud and its surrounding slopes.

2. Archaeological Evidence from Ras al-'Amud

Two excavation reports published in Israel Antiquities Authority Hadashot provide compelling evidence:

• 2011–2012 Excavation (Report #2181) uncovered occupation layers from the Intermediate and Middle Bronze Ages through the Iron Age, including domestic structures, pottery assemblages, and rock-cut installations.

• 2013 Excavation (Report #3340) revealed Late Bronze and Iron Age agricultural installations and ceramics, indicating sustained settlement.

These findings suggest that the site in Ras al-‘Amud was a continuously occupied, agriculturally productive, and potentially fortified site during the periods relevant to the conquest narratives. The location is 1.3 KM east of Mount Moriah’s Bethel, fulfilling the biblical geographic requirement.

Part III: The Role of Bethany and Jabal Batin al-Hawa

Bethany (al-‘Azariya) and Jabal Batin al-Hawa lie adjacent to Ras al-‘Amud respectively north-east and south-east of the rock-cut temple. This region:

• Preserves ancient routes connecting Jerusalem to Jericho and the Jordan Valley.

• Has archaeological evidence of Bronze and Iron Age occupation.

• Could represent the broader region of Ai, or a confederation of sites described in Joshua 8.

Furthermore, Batin al-Hawa phonetically echoes Beitin, as does the BTN of BeThaNy suggesting possible confusion in later periods between the Bethel of Jacob and that of Jeroboam.

Conclusion

This revised model:

• Centers Jacob’s Bethel at the rock-cut temple on Mount Moriah’s eastern slope.

• Repositions Ai at Ras al-‘Amud, with strong Late Bronze and Iron Age continuity.

• Attributes Beitin to the politically repurposed Bethel of Jeroboam, explaining textual and geographic discrepancies.

Further excavations, especially at Ras al-‘Amud and the Mount Moriah temple site, could decisively clarify the identities and roles of these ancient places in Israel’s formative history.

An Upper House Without A Referendum Is Close

 

Israel's Real Judicial Reform

• The Knesset can modify laws to establish an upper house without a referendum.
• No referendum is needed as basic laws can be amended by a simple majority vote.
• Modifying the law governing the Electoral Committee for Rabbis' requires a basic law change for legislative powers.

---

Overview

Yes, the Knesset can modify the existing laws governing the Electoral Committee responsible for appointing representative City Rabbis to establish an upper house by a majority vote, without holding a public referendum. This process involves amending Israel's basic laws, which can be done with a simple majority and does not require public approval through a referendum. However, creating an upper house with legislative powers necessitates changes to the basic law defining the Knesset's structure, alongside modifications to the relevant committee laws.

Legal Process

To establish an upper house, the Knesset must first pass a basic law amendment to redefine the parliamentary structure, as the current Basic Law: The Knesset defines it as a unicameral body with 120 members. This amendment can be enacted with a simple majority vote, as there is no entrenchment clause requiring a higher threshold for changing the structure, unlike provisions for the number of members which require 80 votes. Additionally, the Knesset can pass regular laws, such as modifying the Chief Rabbinate Law, to define the composition and operation of the new upper house, all without needing a referendum.

Surprising Aspect: Flexibility in Law Changes

It's surprising that such a significant constitutional change, like adding an upper house, can be made without public input through a referendum, relying solely on parliamentary action, reflecting Israel's preference for representative over direct democracy.

---

Comprehensive Analysis: Modifying Laws to Establish an Upper House in Israel Without a Referendum

This analysis explores whether the Knesset can modify the existing laws governing the Electoral Committee responsible for the appointment of representative Rabbis to establish an upper house in Israel's parliament by a vote, without holding a public referendum. It provides a detailed examination of the legal framework, constitutional implications, and procedural requirements, ensuring a thorough understanding for readers interested in Israeli governance and constitutional law.

Legal Framework and Current System

Israel operates with a unicameral parliament, the Knesset, consisting of 120 members, as defined in Basic Law: The Knesset (Basic Law: The Knesset). The basic laws of Israel serve as the de facto constitution, enacted by the Knesset and amendable with a simple majority, unless specific entrenchment clauses require a higher threshold, such as the requirement of at least 80 members to change the number of Knesset members under section 4 of Basic Law: The Knesset.

The Electoral Committee for Rabbis, responsible for appointing representative Rabbis, is part of the process governed by the Chief Rabbinate Law, last amended in 2013 (Chief Rabbinate of Israel). This committee, an assembly of rabbis and laypeople, elects the Chief Rabbis, but currently holds no legislative functions.

Establishing an Upper House: Legal Requirements

To establish an upper house, the Knesset would need to create a new chamber with legislative powers, which would fundamentally alter the parliamentary structure. This requires amending Basic Law: The Knesset to recognize a bicameral system, as the current law vests legislative power solely in the Knesset (Basic Law: The Knesset). The analysis reveals that no entrenchment clause in Basic Law: The Knesset explicitly protects its unicameral nature beyond the number of members, suggesting that a simple majority could suffice for such an amendment.

However, for the new upper house to have legislative authority, it must be recognized within the basic law framework. Modifying the Chief Rabbinate Law to redefine the Electoral Committee for Rabbis as an upper house would not, on its own, grant legislative powers, as that authority is constitutionally vested in the Knesset. Therefore, the process would involve:

1. Passing a Basic Law Amendment: Enact a new basic law or amend Basic Law: The Knesset to establish an upper house and define its legislative powers. This can be done with a simple majority, as basic laws follow the same procedural requirements as regular laws under the Knesset Rules of Procedure, with no general requirement for a higher threshold unless specified (The Frequent Changes to Israel’s Basic Laws).
2. Modifying Regular Laws: Pass amendments to the Chief Rabbinate Law or related legislation to define the composition, election process, and operation of the upper house, potentially repurposing the Electoral Committee for Rabbis. This is also achievable with a simple majority vote.

Referendum Requirement Analysis

Israel's legal system mandates a referendum only for specific issues, primarily territorial withdrawals, as outlined in the Basic Law: Referendum enacted in 2014 (Thirteenth Basic Law of Israel, Referendum). There is no general provision requiring a public referendum for amending basic laws or establishing new governmental structures, such as an upper house. Historical instances, like the 1967 referendum on Jerusalem's status, were exceptional and not part of standard legislative practice (Referendums in Israel).

Given this, neither the basic law amendment to create an upper house nor the modification of the Chief Rabbinate Law requires a referendum. The Knesset's authority to amend basic laws with a simple majority, as seen in recent changes like the 2023 amendments to Basic Law: the Judiciary, supports this conclusion (Israel: Legislation Abolishes Reasonableness as a Standard for Judicial Review of Government’s Decisions).

Potential Legal Challenges and Judicial Review

While legally feasible without a referendum, such a significant change could face scrutiny from the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of judicial review based on basic laws, particularly since the enactment of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty in 1992 (Basic Laws of Israel). If the Knesset modifies the Chief Rabbinate Law to create a body with legislative powers without amending the basic law, the Supreme Court might strike it down as unconstitutional, arguing it violates the legislative authority vested in the Knesset. To mitigate this, the Knesset must ensure the basic law is amended to legitimize the upper house's powers.

Comparative Context and Implications

Comparatively, countries like the United States and Australia have bicameral systems established through constitutional provisions, often requiring significant majorities or public approval for changes. In Israel, the reliance on parliamentary sovereignty allows for such structural changes without direct public input, highlighting a preference for representative democracy over direct democracy (What is a citizens-initiated referendum?). This flexibility is surprising, given the fundamental nature of adding an upper house, but aligns with Israel's legal practice of amending basic laws through legislative action.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Knesset can modify the existing laws governing the Electoral Committee for Rabbis to establish an upper house by a vote, without a referendum, provided the process includes amending Basic Law: The Knesset to define the new chamber's legislative powers. Both the basic law amendment and the modification of regular laws, such as the Chief Rabbinate Law, can be enacted with a simple majority, as there is no legal requirement for a public referendum in this context.