The Josephus Location of Jerusalem's Temples

The re-creation model of Herod’s Temple Mount often displayed today has essentially been accepted as dogma for over 30 years.  The model was published and defended by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer, archaeologist and architect, in 1992 [1] and championed 14 years later in his well-written and well-illustrated book [2].  The problem, in my view, is that the model is rich in speculation and poor in lining up with written accounts from eyewitness historians like Josephus. 

The model of Herod’s Temple Mount in the Israel Museum.  The Ritmeyer model is very similar in that the sanctuary covers the entire modern Haram Al-Sharif, with the Temple in the middle and a quite small Fortress Antonia seen in the photo at the right.

Without doubt the best eyewitness historian from the first century was Flavius Josephus. You will find that virtually all investigators of Herod’s Temple Mount quote his descriptions.  The Mishnah also provides an important perspective.  The latter was written down less than two centuries later.   The problem with Josephus is that his geographical descriptions of Jerusalem have always confused readers.  They describe important features, but when it comes to precise locations and measurements, they are often ambiguous or even seemingly contradictory.   Unfortunately, he did not draw us a map.  As a result, investigators have inevitably quoted his passages that fit their model and leave out the ones that don’t.  As George Bernard Shaw aptly put it once: “The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.”

I am not accusing the Ritmeyers of willful neglect.  As I am a retired scientist who published in the scientific literature for 40 years, I am aware that some speculation goes into all articles—after the data are introduced.   But in most scientific fields the more the data can tell the story, and the less speculation, the better.   But in archaeology and history, data from the field are usually sparse.  More speculation is required.  Unfortunately, to sell the hypothesis, the uncertainty in the conclusions and other plausible explanations are usually left out.  I remember a scientific-talk instructor once told us “Don’t give your caveats, that’s all the audience will remember.”  This lack of transparency became so apparent in many scientific fields (and frowned upon) that now some quantification of the uncertainty is frequently required by the journal to get a paper published.   But history and archaeology, in my opinion, have not followed suit.  Theories are still considered valuable depending more on the credentials of the writer.  “Most scholars agree” is the frequent phrase used.  This means a lot of scholars have opinions, but no one has irrefutable evidence.  And the more credentials the scholar has, the more weight their opinion carries.   In the case of the model put forward by the Ritmeyers, it seems to have become almost a sacred dogma that is difficult to challenge because (1) they make some good arguments, (2) they have very good credentials, (3) the audience wants to believe in a large and grand temple complex, and (4) they have a beautiful coffee-table book [2] with no caveats available at bookstores across Jerusalem.

            So, what is the problem with their sanctuary model?  It’s the wrong shape and too big.  Josephus states clearly, in three separate places in three different ways, that the sanctuary built by Herod was a square, 400 cubits (600 feet) on each side.   Other of his details would clearly place it in the southwest corner of today’s Haram.   Today you will read that “most scholars agree” Josephus must have got the dimensions wrong [3,4] and that this smaller SW-corner model was disproven years ago by Charles Warren, himself [5]. Charles Warren was the Royal British Engineer who first mapped the subsurface topography in and around Jerusalem in the 1860s.  His map still stands today as the best we have of the bedrock topography of Jerusalem’s Old City.

A contour map of the bedrock surface in Jerusalem created by Charles Warren in 1871 [7]. The contours are estimates relying on scattered data points (not shown) within the Haram and at the outer edges of the walls. The Tyropeon Valley underlies the SW corner of the Haram.

This is how the original debate over the temple complex layout went down.  A square sanctuary in the SW corner of the Haram was first proposed by the world-renowned architect, James Fergusson, based on Josephus’ writings.  This was before the visits and digs by Charles Warren.  When Warren arrived, he believed Josephus that Herod’s sanctuary was square.  For Josephus also wrote of a prophecy saying the Temple would be destroyed if it’s sanctuary was made a square again.  It was a warning from the Romans and King Agrippa not to disconnect the sanctuary from Fortress Antonia via the connecting colonnades, leaving the sanctuary to be an isolated square. The Romans were wary of Jewish rebels turning it into a fortress.  But to Warren (and many others more recently) seeing is believing.  It is hard to stand in front of the magnificent walls (I have done so) and not believe these are the outlines of Herod’s platform.   The Ritmeyers have tried to argue that the “square” was an earlier temple layout layer altered by Herod.  But neither Josephus nor the Talmud say this.  Warren concluded that Josephus got his dimensions wrong—instead of 600 feet he must have meant 600 cubits.  Warren and Fergusson continued to argue over this in view of the public [5] until the weight of Warren’s experience won out [6] and Fergusson moved on to other projects. 

Charles Warren’s idea of the layout of Herod’s temple mount [4]  He believed it to be a square (as described by Josephus and the Talmud).  He placed the NE corner at the Golden Gate in the Eastern Wall.

 One of Warren’s strongest arguments against Fergusson was he had discovered in his digs that the SW corner was over a valley, not on a hilltop.  However, his topographic map [7] has no data points anywhere near the projected SW Temple location, only inferred contours.  The data points were collected from rocks exposed in vertical shafts that led to known cisterns on the Haram [7].  David’s altar (built on a threshing floor) could easily have been on a substantial ledge on the SW hillside near the hilltop.  In fact, Josephus states Solomon had to build deep and strong supporting walls to support an expanded square platform that would also host the Temple next to the altar [8]. This suggests the initial threshing floor and altar were not centered on a flat hilltop, but at the edge of a valley.

Fergusson was not the only person arguing for a smaller 600-ft square sanctuary in the SW corner.  Thomas Lewin[9] was an Oxford graduate in classical languages, a barrister for the Crown, a prolific author of biblical-era history, and had studied Josephus in the original Greek for 25 years.  He also favored the SW location for the temple complex.  Lewin presented his analysis before the Society of Antiquaries in London (in which Lewin had obtained the status of Fellow) in 1871 and it was published in the reputable journal Archaeologia in 1873 [10].  Lewin’s defense was much more rigorous and extensive than that of Fergusson.  Lewin had also visited the site himself after a critic of his earlier book pointed out his lack of on the ground observations.  But Lewin died in 1877, after which there was no one left to champion his ideas.  Warren was aware of Lewin’s earlier writings before his excavations but never mentioned Lewin’s 1873 paper.  In fact, it appears that for 150 years no one ever acknowledged it.  Even Lewin’s national biography that lists his many publications fails to list this and his other related papers.  Recently, however, Google has been going around dusting off old journal volumes from libraries and digitizing them for public consumption.  This is how Lewin’s article finally reached the light of day.  Lewin puts forth many arguments that support his map of the first century layout.  I have written earlier blogs [11] describing these arguments, which are too many to list here.  His full papers can be read on this website at this location. 

Map presented by Thomas Lewin in his 1873 paper in Archaeologia.  A 600-foot-square temple sanctuary is connected by colonnades to Fortress Antonia.  This fortress (unlike that of Ritmeyer) is large enough to accommodate (as described by Josephus) the hundreds of Roman soldier present in the garrison left in Jerusalem.  Today’s Eastern Wall is the city wall, not the sanctuary wall, which Lewin also points out fits well with the city walls at the time described by Josephus.

In conclusion—can we be so certain to dismiss Josephus’ testimony, the person who lived and walked around Herod’s temple complex for 30 years?  So often we are guilty of thinking we know better.  His main goal was to record an accurate history of all that had transpired.  Many will never take his word for it though, for he was also branded a traitor to the Jews.  Today, the public loves to see the Ritmeyers’ grand version of the temple complex, and it seems to have nearly become a sacred dogma that no one dares challenge. But the debate is not over.  As a scientist, I will accept the results if you can prove Lewin wrong.  But arguments against his view have not yet persuaded me.

References

[1] Ritmeyer, Kathleen, and Ritmeyer, Leen, 1992, Locating the original Temple Mount. Biblical Archaeology Review v. 18, no. 2, 32 p. 24, 26, 29, 32–37, 43–45, 65.

[2] Ritmeyer, Leen, 2006, The Quest—Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.  Carta, Jerusalem, 440 p.

[3] Jacobson, David, 2019, George Grove and the Establishment of the Palestine Fund, In: Gurevich, David, and Kidron, Anat, Editors, Exploring the Holy Land—150 Years of the Palestine Exploration Fund, Sheffield, page 18.

[4] Warren, Charles, 1876, Underground Jerusalem: An Account of Some of the Principal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained.  William Clowes and Sons, London, 559 p.  https://archive.org/details/undergroundjerus00warruoft/page/n7/mode/2up

[5] Warren, Charles, 1880, The Temple or the Tomb, Richard Bentley and Son, London, 227 p. https://archive.org/details/templeortombgiv00warruoft/page/n5/mode/2up

[6] Jacobson, David, 2003, Charles Warren vs. James Fergusson, Biblical Archaeology Review p. 58, 60–69, 84–85.

[7] Wilson, Charles, and Warren, Charles, 1871, The Recovery of Jerusalem—A Narrative of the Exploration and Discovery in the City and the Holy land.  Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street, London, 554 p.   https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.05632/page/n5/mode/2up

[8] Josephus, Flavius, Antiquities, Book 15, chapter 3, verses 398-399.

[9] https://www.cryforjerusalem.com/post/thomas-lewin-historical-detective

[10] Lewin, Thomas, 1873, Observations of the probable sites of the Jewish Temple and Antonia, and the Acra, with reference to the results of the recent Palestine explorations.  Archaeologia: vol. 44, p. 17-62.  https://www.cryforjerusalem.com/documents

[11] https://www.cryforjerusalem.com/post/the-temple-mount-paradox-solved