The Temple Was Built on the Temple Mount, Not in the City of David: Examining the Claims of the Alternate Location Hypothesis

In that first article, it was mentioned that a longer and more detailed article was needed to address many of the specific claims about the alternate location. That is what this article will do, although space does not permit an analysis of every argument, so this article will cover most of the common claims from ALH proponents. In addition to addressing their arguments, this article will highlight numerous archaeological finds indicating that the temples were indeed built on the Temple Mount, just as nearly all scholars and laymen have believed for millennia.

But sometimes, the experts are right, and when it comes to the location of the first and second Jewish temples in Jerusalem, it can be conclusively demonstrated that the experts are indeed correct.

We live in a day where history and tradition are scorned. Many people are looking for a way to overthrow the status quo. They want special knowledge that will help them see the truth while others remain in error in following traditional views. And the internet has provided no shortage of non-traditional ideas for people to adopt. This is largely how the flat earth movement gained traction, and the ALH capitalizes on a similar distrust of the experts, only instead of denying astronomy, cartography, and the eyewitness reports of astronauts, the ALH rejects or reinterprets archaeological reports, historical records, and biblical accounts. I am in no way advocating that we blindly follow the experts in any area because all ideas must be compared with Scripture. But sometimes, the experts are right, and when it comes to the location of the first and second Jewish temples in Jerusalem, it can be conclusively demonstrated that the experts are indeed correct.

One may wonder whether I have the necessary qualifications to address this topic. As the content manager for AiG’s attractions division, I am responsible for developing the content for our attractions. For more than a year, our team has been researching first-century Jerusalem so that we can build an accurate scale model. I was part of a team that traveled to Israel and spent over a week in Jerusalem, meeting with multiple experts and touring every first-century site we could. Also, I recently completed and successfully defended my doctoral dissertation titled “A Historical Study of Jerusalem c. AD 33 and its Implications on Creating an Accurate Scale Model to Enable Believers to Gain a Deeper Understanding of the New Testament.” Approximately 40 pages of my dissertation were devoted to addressing ALH as I combed through excavation reports, historical records, and Scripture to refute many of the erroneous claims made by ALH proponents. I am currently working on a more detailed book addressing these wrong ideas.

[Note: To differentiate between the historical Temple Mount and the ALH proposed site, this article will capitalize Temple Mount when referring to the historical site, but the proposed ALH location will be designated as the ALH site.]

False Claims About Fortress Antonia

At the heart of ALH is the claim that the historical Temple Mount was actually the foundation of the Roman fortress Antonia. Several fallacious arguments have been raised to support this notion. In Acts 17:11, Luke commended the Berean believers for checking Paul’s teachings against the Scriptures. Indeed, Cornuke encouraged his listeners to follow the example of the Bereans by checking out what he was about to tell them.1 So let us take up that challenge, and, as in the first article, we will focus on critiquing the arguments rather than the people who promote them, even if ALH proponents do not always afford their detractors the same courtesy.2

Size and Shape of Roman Forts

ALH proponents often claim that the historical Temple Mount closely approximated or was exactly the same size and shape as Roman forts. Ernest Martin stated that the Praetorian Camp in Rome was 1200 ×️ 1200 feet and was “very similar in size, with the Haram [Temple Mount] being about 15 per cent larger.”3 While looking across and pointing at the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives, ALH proponent Bob Esposito stated, “So, if you look at the dimensions of that, every Roman fort was 1200 ×️ 600 feet square or rectangular. This is almost exactly like that—it’s 96% because of the formation of the rock.”4

In his documentary on the subject, Cornuke stated, “I believe it’s because it’s been on the Temple Mount. That was the Roman fortress—that huge complex. If you look at it today, it is in the same dimensions as many Roman fortresses. So where did the Romans stay? They stayed on the Temple Mount.”5 During a presentation at a church, Cornuke misled his audience repeatedly about the size of Roman forts. “But we do know what Roman fortresses look like. They’re rectangular. About 36–37 acres. You go to Baalbek, and there’s one exactly the same size as the Temple Mount. Okay? You go to Syria and there’s another one . . . .”6 At this point, Cornuke shows a slide in his presentation titled “Roman forts” featuring an aerial image of an unnamed place while he states, “This is in Syria. Look at this. It’s the exact same size as the Roman fortress that you just saw.”7 He did not tell his audience precisely where this “Roman fort” was located, but I was able to track it down. The site he showed his audience was a place called Sergiopolis (modern Resafa). The walls that can be seen today are from the sixth century AD, and it most certainly does not have the same dimensions as the other forts he discussed, as we shall see.

Perhaps this is why Cornuke seldom provides documentation for his claims and why he mocked the use of footnotes early in the presentation as a practice of insecure scholars who are too afraid to introduce new ideas.8 Strangely enough, he followed up his criticism of the use of footnotes by scholars with a plea for people to “be like the Bereans” and investigate his claims. Well, one of the primary reasons researchers provide documentation via footnotes is so that readers can check their work (i.e., be like the Bereans). Refusing to document such claims only makes it harder to be like the Bereans, making one wonder whether Cornuke truly desires someone to check his work. This is especially true when we consider how Cornuke and other ALH proponents have responded to those who have challenged their assertions.9

Martin’s statement was not as far-fetched as the others, although he inaccurately reported the size of the Praetorian Camp, which measured 1444 ×️ 1247 ft. (440 ×️ 380 meters).10 This would make it about 15% larger than the Temple Mount, which is nearly a trapezoid measuring 1038 ×️ 1530 ×️ 914 ×️ 1590 ft.11 Cornuke’s and Esposito’s statements are patently false. The temple complex at Baalbek, which served as a Roman fort for a time, is a completely different shape and is considerably smaller than the Temple Mount.12 Sergiopolis (Resafa) in Syria is somewhat similar in shape, but it covered approximately 51 acres, so it was much larger than the Temple Mount.13 The Temple Mount’s dimensions do not match a single Roman legionary fortress, which varied widely in size and shape, with most being considerably larger than the Temple Mount.14 Mark Cartwright described the dimensions of Roman forts, which were not always built for full legions. He stated that they “varied in size with the smallest measuring under a single hectare while the larger ones could be over 50 hectares in area.”15 By comparison, 50 hectares is nearly 124 acres, and the Temple Mount covers approximately 14 hectares (or 35 acres), less than a third of the largest Roman forts of the era.

The Size of Several Cities?

As we saw in the introductory article, ALH proponents misuse historical sources, such as Josephus, and it is no different when they discuss the size of the Temple Mount. While discussing the size of Antonia, Martin wrote, “Indeed, it resembled just not one city in size, but this particular fort was ‘composed of several cities.’”16 Cornuke cites Josephus as writing, “Now as to the Tower of Antonia . . . it might seem to be composed of several cities.”17 Esposito claimed that Josephus wrote, “It was so large, it was as large as a city, actually several cities.”18

There are two huge problems with these claims, but to see them, we need to look at the quotation from Whiston’s translation of Josephus.

The inward parts had the largeness and form of a palace, it being parted into all kinds of rooms and other conveniences, such as courts, and places for bathing, and broad spaces for camps; insomuch that, by having all conveniences that cities wanted, it might seem to be composed of several cities, but by its magnificence, it seemed a palace.19

The first point to notice is that the italicized portion (“composed of several cities”) is not a description of Antonia’s size. Instead, Josephus explained that the fort possessed all the amenities that cities have. In other words, in this statement, he was describing Antonia’s conveniences and not its size or proportions. Notice that Cornuke used an ellipsis to eliminate the words that inform the reader of this fact, just as he does with the wording about Mount Moriah in 2 Chronicles 3:1, as we discussed in the introductory article.

Second, Martin, Cornuke, and other ALH proponents rely on Whiston’s translation of Josephus, which is demonstrably inaccurate here. The word translated as “several cities” by Whiston is the Greek term πόλις (polis), a singular noun that simply means “town” or “city.” Readers might recognize it from the names of certain American cities, such as Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and Annapolis. Indeed, other translations of Josephus render this term correctly.

Thackeray: “. . . so that from its possession of all conveniences it seemed a town, from its magnificence a palace.”20

Williamson: “. . . so that in having all conveniences it was virtually a town, in its splendour a palace.”21

Cornfeld: “. . . so that in having all conveniences it seemed like a town, and in its splendor a palace.”22

It is surprising that Whiston mistranslated πόλις as “cities” since the term is clearly not in its plural form (πόλεις), and there is no modifier connected to it to justify adding the word “several” before it. Furthermore, Whiston correctly translated πόλις while describing Herod’s fortress of Herodium in a very similar manner: “ . . . insomuch that on account of its containing all necessaries, the fortress might seem to be a city, but, by the bounds it had, a palace only.”23

So, while ALH advocates should not be blamed for Whiston’s mistranslation of πόλις, they can be faulted for claiming that Josephus was describing the size of Antonia rather than its conveniences. Also, before someone proposes a novel theory that conflicts with the near consensus of archaeologists, historians, and theologians, he must carefully check his sources, especially as they relate to crucial arguments. In this case, the Greek text of Josephus is easy to find for free online, and several English translations accurately render πόλις as city. Finally, ALH proponents should not be excused for failing to check the Greek text on this point since they attempt to use the Greek while making their next big point about Antonia.

Cohort or Legion

A critical argument for the ALH is that the historical understanding of Fortress Antonia would not be large enough to house a Roman legion; thus, they claim that the entire Temple Mount was Antonia and home to the tenth legion. The Arabic name for the Temple Mount is Haram esh-Sharif (or Haram al-Sharif), a term Martin routinely uses instead of Temple Mount. He wrote, “If we pay close attention to the historical accounts of Josephus, it is easy to identify the Haram as Fort Antonia.”24 After claiming that it housed a Roman legion (5,000–6,000 troops), Martin took issue with English translators of Josephus for stating that only a cohort (500–600 troops) was stationed at Antonia.25

The translators resorted to rendering the Greek word tagma and its derivatives, which normally mean “legion,” as signifying a small “cohort.” This is wrong. Throughout the works of Josephus, the various legions of Rome (including the Fifth, Tenth, Twelfth and Fifteenth—the very legions fighting under Titus during the Roman/Jewish War) were each designated as a tagma (a full legion of troops).26

After acknowledging his reliance upon Martin on this point, Cornuke stated that “there has been a blatant mistranslation of Josephus’ words in Williamson[’s translation] and the Loeb editions by Thackeray. That [latter] translation of Josephus is said to use the word cohort in describing the number of soldiers at the fort—which would make for a much smaller contingent of about 480 or so men.”27

While there is an element of truth in this claim—tagma is usually translated as legion instead of cohort in translations of Josephus—the claims by Martin and Cornuke are unfounded. The passage in question reads as follows in Thackeray’s translation:

At the point where it [Antonia] impinged upon the porticoes of the temple, there were stairs leading down to both of them, by which the guards descended; for a Roman cohort [tagma] was permanently quartered there, and at the festivals took up positions in arms around the porticoes to watch the people and repress any insurrectionary movement.28

The Greek tagma is translated variously as legion and cohort in Josephus because it refers to “a clearly defined group” and an orderly arrangement of personnel.29 It could refer to a legion, cohort, or any other group. It appears once in the New Testament, and here it refers to a class or group in a sequence: “But each in his own order [tagma]: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:23). Tagma appears in the Septuagint several times, particularly in Numbers 2, to describe the size of each tribe of Israel, and these groups numbered in the tens of thousands. It is also used in 2 Samuel 23:13 to describe an unspecified number of Philistine soldiers that three of David’s men snuck past.

The Greek term for legion is legiōn (λεγιών),30 but Josephus did not use it, opting instead for the more general term for any type of military division. Legiōn is found in a few places in the New Testament. In Mark 5 and Luke 8, we read about Jesus casting demons out of a man and allowing them to enter a herd of swine. The demon who spoke through the man said to Jesus, “My name is Legion, for we are many” (Mark 5:9). After Peter cut off Malchus’ ear, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and then asked, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53).

Since tagma can refer to a legion, cohort, or other groups, how can we know whether Josephus intended to tell us about a legion or a cohort? Knowing how a word is most frequently translated is not decisive in determining its meaning in a given passage. Instead, we need to look at the context of each passage. In this particular case, we can be confident that Josephus did not state that the entire tenth legion remained at Antonia, as Martin and Cornuke have argued. At the outset of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70, Josephus stated that Titus ordered the tenth legion to travel to Jerusalem via Jericho.31 In the few years leading up to that, the tenth legion was in Armenia (AD 58–66) before traveling to Galilee in AD 67 to assist in quelling the Jewish Revolt. After defeating the Jews at Gabara and Jotapata (where Josephus was captured), the tenth legion spent time in Acre and Beit She’an before moving south along the Jordan River and capturing Jericho.32 In other words, they were not stationed at Fortress Antonia, as ALH proponents repeatedly claim. It wasn’t until after Jerusalem’s destruction that the tenth legion was stationed in Jerusalem, but their camp was on the Western Hill on the remains of Herod’s palace—not on the Temple Mount.

Furthermore, if we are to take Josephus seriously, as Martin and Cornuke rightly insist, then we must not ignore the following statement describing events in the early days of the revolt: “On the next day, being the fifteenth of the month Lous, they attacked Antonia and, after a siege of two days, captured the garrison, put them to the sword and set fire to the fortress.”33 Are we truly supposed to believe that in just two days, Jewish rebels wiped out a Roman legion of ~6,000 fully armed soldiers and perhaps a few thousand more support personnel occupying the entire Temple Mount? Where is the historical support for the tenth legion being obliterated in two days by Jewish rebels? And if the tenth legion was wiped out here, then how could they be one of the four legions involved in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem?

The Romans later retook Antonia, but they could not mobilize enough troops to fight the Jews through such a small entrance onto the Temple Mount, so they destroyed the fortress to make a wider route for their soldiers to reach the temple. Josephus stated, “the Roman army, having in seven days overthrown the foundations of Antonia, had prepared a broad ascent to the temple.” If the entire Temple Mount was actually Antonia, how could the Roman army completely overthrow its foundations in just a week, even though the foundations are still in place? Also, if the temple were truly in the City of David and the Temple Mount were Antonia, how could the Romans prepare a “broad ascent” from what had been Antonia to a temple that was lower in elevation in the City of David—at least in Cornuke’s model?34

Finally, the Bible includes strong clues against the notion of an entire legion being stationed at Antonia.

Finally, the Bible includes strong clues against the notion of an entire legion being stationed at Antonia. In Acts 21, Paul was seized in the temple by some angry Jews after he had been falsely accused of bringing Gentiles into the temple’s inner courts. Before they could kill him, the commander of the cohort in Jerusalem came down the steps from Antonia and arrested Paul (Acts 21:32). The word translated as commander (NKJV) and tribune (ESV) is χιλιάρχος (chiliarkos). While the word literally means “leader of a thousand soldiers,” by the time of Polybius in the second century BC, it referred to a “military tribune, the commander of a cohort=about 600 men.”35 What happened following Paul’s arrest is especially relevant to our topic. The commander, Claudius Lysias, found out that over forty Jews had taken an oath not to eat food until they had killed Paul. So, Claudius ordered 470 men to transport Paul to Governor Felix at Caesarea (Acts 23:23), and he drafted a letter to Felix to inform him of the situation and allow him to rule on Paul’s case (Acts 23:25–30). If a Roman legion were headquartered at Antonia, then why did a lower-level commander make all the decisions regarding Paul’s safety rather than the legate (legatus legionis), the legion’s commander? The obvious reason is that Jerusalem did not have a legate because it did not have a legion at that time. Instead, Rome’s highest-ranking commander in Jerusalem was Claudius Lysias, a chiliarkos, a cohort commander.

Large Enough to Obstruct the Temple

Determined to prove their assertion that the Temple Mount was actually Fortress Antonia, ALH proponents further demonstrate their lack of understanding of Josephus and/or the topography near the Temple Mount. Speaking of the alleged enormity of Antonia, Martin wrote, “its physical dimensions were so huge that Fort Antonia obscured the view of the Temple from those approaching Jerusalem from the north . . . When the accounts of Josephus are analyzed, it can be seen that Fort Antonia was so huge in size that it actually occupied the whole region north of the actual Temple Mount, not simply at the Temple’s northwest angle of its outer walls.”36 Esposito made the same claim in his video, “And Josephus tells us that Fort Antonia was much larger in scope than the temple itself. He said from the northern side it blocked the temple.”37 Cornuke appears to reference the same argument when he wrote, “Josephus wrote that it was said that the fort was much larger than the temple, but scholars say the temple area is much bigger than the fort.”38 He adds that the Roman fort “would be overshadowing a subordinate in size temple area.”39 Later, he wrote, “That is why, from the north of Jerusalem, the entirety of the Roman garrison shielded the sight of the temple from Josephus.”40

Josephus described Antonia as blocking one’s view of the temple from the north, just as Martin and Esposito claimed, but this does not work against the historical view in any way. Here is what Josephus wrote:

For as the Temple served as a fortress dominating the city, so did Antonia dominate the Temple, and the occupants of that post guarded all three; the upper town had its own fortress at Herod’s palace. The hill Bezetha was, as I mentioned, cut off from Antonia. It was the highest of all the hills, and its rising ground was encroached on in part by the new town; it formed in the north the only obstruction which obscured the view of the Temple.41

Herod’s palace rested on the Western Hill. Contrary to Cornuke’s claim, Josephus did not state that “the fort was much larger than the temple” or that the temple area would be “subordinate in size” to the Roman fort. Cornuke implies that Antonia must have been much larger than the temple since Josephus said that it dominated it.42 Whether one holds the historical view or ALH, neither proposes that the temple area was larger than the rest of the city, so it would not follow that Antonia was larger than the temple. The temple stood above much of the city on the Temple Mount, and in the same way, Antonia stood higher than the temple and served as a guard over it. Regarding Antonia, Josephus stated that the soldiers within it were guards of Antonia itself, the temple, and the city. This description is consistent with both the historical view and ALH.

While ALH proponents claim that Josephus spoke of Antonia obscuring the view of the temple from the north, Josephus indicated that it was the hill known as Bezetha that obscured the view from the north. This would be consistent with what is known of Jerusalem’s topography. The hill north of the Temple Mount is higher in elevation than Mount Moriah, so if someone stood on the north of Bezetha, the hill would block one’s view of the temple. Thus, this statement from Josephus does not negate the historical view. The same is true even if Josephus stated that Antonia blocked the view of the temple because the historical view includes an Antonia fortress that would obstruct a person’s view of the temple from the north. Antonia was built atop a rock scarp at the northwestern corner of the Temple Mount. This scarp is still visible today, as are several trapezoidal sockets cut into the rock that would have held support beams for the northern portico. Ritmeyer stated that the scarp “on which Antonia stood is at present only 32 feet (9.75 m, c. 19 cubits) higher than the court of the Temple.”43 If Josephus’ figures are even close to being accurate, then the walls of Antonia were approximately 60 feet high (~40 cubits), with towers in each corner of the rectangular fortress. Three of these towers were 50 cubits (~75 feet) tall, and the southeastern tower stood 70 cubits (~105 feet) tall.44 The temple itself was only 40 cubits (~60 feet) tall, so there is no way a person standing on the ground level directly north of the Temple Mount could see the temple itself because Antonia would have been in the line of sight, just as Josephus wrote.

Imaginary Bridges

Perhaps one of the strangest misuses of Josephus is found when ALH proponents claim that the historian described two parallel porticoes that served as both roadways and bridges between the Temple Mount and Fortress Antonia. Martin wrote,

These two roadways (both the lower roadway which was the sheltered portion among the columns and the upper roadway on top of the columns) were two avenues leading into the Temple from Fort Antonia. The Roman soldiers who guarded the Temple used the upper roadways on top of the two colonnades. This feature made them to appear as two side-by-side “bridges” 600 feet long.45

While pointing toward the southern end of the Temple Mount, Esposito said, “Josephus tells us from the southwest corner, so on the other side of that corner, that there were two colonnades from the Fort Antonia that went to the temple that were 600 feet long.”

Cornuke repeated this idea when he wrote, “Josephus recorded that King Herod built two side-by-side bridges . . . connecting the gap between the temple and the Roman fort”46 Cornuke offered a strange explanation about why others do not accept this novel interpretation of Josephus:

Most scholars do not mention these two colonnade/bridges at all because they do not fit into the traditional Temple Mount location scenarios. Some, it seems, will say that Josephus is wrong in his account of these two bridges and that he just made them up. Contrarians to the Josephus narrative want the temple to be situated on the Temple Mount as it has been assumed for a very long time. But it is hard to ignore Josephus who said, “Now as to the tower of Antonia, it was situated at the corner of the two cloisters [colonnades] of the court of the temple, of that on the west, and that on the north.”47

There may be many reasons why “most scholars do not mention these two” bridges, but certainly, the primary reason would be that they did not exist, and Josephus did not speak of them either.

There may be many reasons why “most scholars do not mention these two” bridges, but certainly, the primary reason would be that they did not exist, and Josephus did not speak of them either. It would be nice if Cornuke gave some examples of people who say Josephus is wrong on this point. However, as he typically does, Cornuke makes a generalized statement about those who disagree with him and then falsely accuses them. The truth is that scholars well regard Josephus’ descriptions of the temple and Jerusalem, yet Martin, Cornuke, and others want people to think that the experts ignore or twist Josephus. Still, it is the ALH proponents who reject what Josephus wrote here. For example, look at what Cornuke quoted from Josephus above. He said that Antonia was “situated at the corner of the two cloisters [colonnades] of the court of the temple, of that on the west, and that on the north.”48 This is from Whiston’s translation of Josephus. Before commenting on it, let’s see how other translations render this passage.

Thackeray: “The tower of Antonia lay at the angle where two porticoes, the western and the northern, of the first court of the temple met . . . ”49

Williamson: “Antonia, situated at the junction of two colonnades of the first Temple court, the western and northern . . . ”50

Cornfeld: “The tower of Antonia was situated at the junction of two porticoes of the first Temple court, the western and the northern . . . ”51

All four of these descriptions are perfectly consistent with the historical view and contradict ALH. Josephus plainly stated that Antonia was located at the place where the northern and western porticoes came together. Later in his work, Josephus provided more details about these two porticoes. He stated that the rebels in the temple filled the western portico with “dry tinder, along with bitumen and pitch” before their fellow Jews lit it on fire.52 Shortly thereafter, he elaborated on the northern portico: “The next day the Romans also burnt the whole northern portico right up to that on the east, where the angle connecting the two was built over the ravine called Kedron.”53

Clearly, the northern portico ran along the northern edge of the Temple Mount all the way to the eastern portico that overlooked the “Kedron” (Kidron) Valley. This means that the northern portico ran west-to-east, while the western portico ran north-to-south along their respective edges of the Temple Mount. These porticoes were perpendicular to one another and met in the northwest corner where Antonia was situated. Yet, somehow Martin and Cornuke claim that in addition to the porticoes surrounding the temple, Josephus described two parallel porticoes/colonnades between Antonia and the Temple, which is the opposite of what he wrote.

Where did Martin and Cornuke ever get the idea that Josephus described parallel bridges between Antonia and the temple? Martin invented the concept based on a bizarre misreading of Josephus. Martin wrote that “two colonnades leading from the Temple to Fort Antonia had the identical dimensions as those that surrounded the four-square outer court of the Temple (45 feet wide) because Josephus called those two colonnades as being appendages of the Temple.” Josephus did not describe two separate colonnades leading from the temple to Antonia; he discussed the western and northern porticoes described above—and he never described them as being appendages to the other four porticoes. Martin twisted a statement from Josephus where the historian described how the Jews burned portions of the western and northern colonnades connected to Antonia to prevent the Romans from moving about on the top of the porticoes and attacking them from above. Josephus described these actions as follows:

Meanwhile the Jews, sorely suffering from their encounters, as the war slowly, yet steadily, rose to a climax and crept towards the sanctuary, cut away, as from a mortifying body, the limbs already affected, to arrest further ravages of the disease. In other words, they set fire to that portion of the north-west portico which was connected with Antonia, and afterwards hacked away some twenty cubits, their own hands thus beginning the conflagration of the holy places.54

Martin referenced this statement when he wrote that the two colonnades “were likened to two ‘limbs attached to a body.’”55 Notice that Martin put quotation marks around “limbs attached to a body” even though this language is not from Josephus. More importantly, Josephus did not describe the colonnades as being like limbs or appendages in the sense of architectural function or appearance; he compared the action of the Jews setting fire to the colonnades to the amputation of diseased limbs. That is, the Jews resorted to drastic measures in hopes of preventing a more disastrous result, just as one hopes that amputation of a diseased limb will prevent the spread of disease to the rest of the body.

Martin goes on to claim in a footnote that if these “bridges” did not span the supposed gap between what he calls Antonia (i.e., the Temple Mount) and his proposed temple mount, then Roman soldiers would need to “climb steps upward for at least 150 feet in order to reach the platform on which the Temple was built.”56 However, these two porticoes became disconnected from Antonia through the actions of the Jews described above, and the Romans never had to climb such a height to reach the Temple Mount because Antonia was already above that platform. Furthermore, just a few paragraphs later, Josephus states that “the Romans also burnt the whole northern portico right up to that on the east, where the angle connecting the two was built over the ravine called Kedron, the depth at that point being consequently terrific. Such was the condition of affairs in the vicinity of the temple.” So, the Romans entirely destroyed one portico before taking the temple.

Temple Springs

Since they have a wrong view of the Temple Mount and Antonia, ALH proponents concoct strange and illegitimate interpretations of the Bible and Josephus. This is also seen in their insistence that a spring had to flow from the midst of the temple. Martin stated, “the scriptural description of God's House in heaven (and its counterpart on earth) consistently shows that the sanctuary has (or must have) spring waters emerging from within its interior.”57 Of course, Cornuke followed suit by using the same argument when he wrote the following:

I stumbled across another fascinating verse that makes it irrefutable that a spring/fountain needs to be a fundamental component of the temple location: “A fountain shall flow from the house of the Lord…” (Joel 3:18). Can it be any clearer that a water source (spring/fountain) flows from the House of the Lord (temple) which held the Ark of the Covenant? This verse is more solidly dogmatic in its pronouncements because it says unequivocally that a spring flows from the temple.58

These are massive overstatements since the Bible does not describe a spring emerging from the interior of either Solomon’s or Herod’s temples, and neither does it describe its forerunner, the tabernacle, as having a spring flowing from its midst, at least not while the Israelites moved it from place to place while wandering in the wilderness. In fact, not a single verse cited by Martin and Cornuke proves that Solomon’s Temple and the Second Temple were anywhere near the Gihon Spring. Instead, they cite verses that poetically describe God being enthroned above the flood (Psalm 29:10) and above the waves of the sea (Psalm 93:3–4) or other similar ideas. The tiny Gihon Spring could hardly be compared to the global flood or the sea. They also cite verses, such as Joel 3:18, Ezekiel 47:1, and Zechariah 14:8–9, verses that clearly do not describe the First Temple or Second Temple. Instead, they describe what has been called by some scholars the eschatological temple, which Christians generally understand as being either a literal future temple that will be built in Jerusalem or a figurative temple fulfilled in Christ.59

To further support this argument, Cornuke claimed that “there absolutely had to be a robust water source to wash away all the waste.”60 Martin included a chapter on the necessity of spring waters flowing from within the temple so that “living waters” (i.e., flowing water rather than captured rainwater) could be used for purification purposes.61 Visitors to modern Jerusalem may find this a persuasive argument since one does not see running water near the Temple Mount. However, it is well known that an elaborate aqueduct brought water 13 miles from Solomon’s Pools near Bethlehem right to the Temple Mount. This manmade waterway dropped an average of five feet per mile and carried water across Wilson’s arch to the temple complex. Remarkably, it was even in use until last century.62 Furthermore, the Gihon Spring does not really fit the colorful descriptions of the supposedly required water sources mentioned by Martin and Cornuke since it is such a small spring, and it is difficult to imagine how the Jews would have pumped the water hundreds of feet straight up to either of the platforms proposed by Martin and Cornuke.

There are a handful of other arguments ALH proponents use that we lack the space to address here. One is based on the idea that Zion can only refer to the portion of the City of David that David initially captured. Although this may have been its initial meaning, it is clear throughout the rest of the Bible that Zion was frequently used synonymously with the entire city of Jerusalem.63 Another line of argument is based on questionable reports from later writers, and even these are often spun to appear as if they favor the alternate view even when they do no such thing.

Archaeological Support for Historical View

Martin and Cornuke typically avoid discussing the arguments against their view and the archaeological finds that contradict it. For example, they do not mention any of the numerous discoveries demonstrating that the historical Temple Mount is indeed the place where Israel’s temples stood. Consider some of these discoveries that the alternate temple proponents cannot adequately explain.

Josephus spoke of a tower on the corner of the Temple Mount overlooking the lower city (southwest corner) where a priest blew a trumpet to mark the beginning and end of the Sabbath.64 In 1968, archaeologist Benjamin Mazar discovered a large stone in the rubble at the base of the southwest corner of the Temple Mount with an inscription in Hebrew translated as “to the place of trumpeting [to announce].”65 This fits the historical view perfectly since the Romans leveled the buildings on the Temple Mount, pushing them off the platform to the streets below. But if this stone was originally in the City of David, as Martin and Cornuke argue, how would such a massive stone migrate hundreds of feet uphill along with all the other huge stones in the debris pile in which it was found?

Similarly, two soreg inscription tablets written in Greek have been found on the north side of the Temple Mount. The soreg was the low partition that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the temple’s inner courts. These two inscriptions were signs warning Gentiles not to move beyond the soreg. Josephus wrote that these signs warned that “no foreigner should go within that sanctuary.”66 When the Roman general Titus encouraged John of Gischala (the leader of the Jewish rebels) to move away from the temple during the siege of Jerusalem, he referenced these signs “engraved in Greek characters,” warning foreigners not to move beyond them upon penalty of death.67 Of the two inscriptions discovered, the more complete one states, “No Gentile may enter within the railing around the Sanctuary and within the enclosure. Whosoever should be caught will render himself liable to the death penalty which will inevitably follow.”68 The Jews from Asia accused Paul of violating this law when they falsely claimed that he had defiled the temple by bringing Gentiles into it (Acts 21:27–28). Remember, these stones were found in the rubble on the north side of the Temple Mount. If Martin and Cornuke are correct, how did these tablets migrate uphill hundreds of meters and around the massive Temple Mount platform?

The historical view is also bolstered by the discoveries of two ossuaries housed in an Israel Antiquities Authority warehouse. In the first century AD, many Jews practiced a burial procedure in which the deceased would be buried in a tomb, and later their bones would be placed in an ossuary (bone box). Two of these boxes (74-1504 and 74-1513) are engraved with the unmistakable design of the massive rectangular ashlar stones of the retaining walls of the Temple Mount. If the Temple Mount was the base of Fortress Antonia, as Martin and Cornuke contend, why in the world would these Jews whose remains were buried in these two bone boxes want to be connected in death with their Gentile oppressors? Obviously, their ossuaries bear the design of these walls because their holy temple stood on the massive platform above these walls. An ALH adherent could claim that these ossuaries were modeled after their version of the temple mount, which must have also featured ashlar stones. However, where are these stones today? What happened to the many thousands of ashlars that would have been needed to create the ALH temple mount? There is simply no evidence of them anywhere, but there are plenty of ashlar stones lying at the base of the historical Temple Mount.

Finally, if the Temple Mount were truly the Roman fortress, why are there so many hallmarks of Jewish religious practices throughout and around the massive platform? For example, the domed ceilings behind the now-sealed double and triple gates on the southern wall of the Temple Mount boast elaborate decorations that match designs found in nearby Jewish tombs, and they do not reflect designs connected with Roman structures.69 Also, the Jews would not have constructed more than fifty ritual baths (miqvaot) in the immediate vicinity of the Temple Mount if it were truly Antonia. Each mikveh bears the telltale divider on the stairs leading into and out of the bath. There are so many of these ritual baths that the Archaeological Park–Davidson Center, located near the base of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, opened a Mikveh Trail Tour in 2017.70 The Temple Mount itself apparently had several of these ritual baths.71 The abundance of these baths would have been necessary in the first century to accommodate the tens of thousands of worshipers who visited the temple, particularly during busy holy days.

Conclusion

All truth claims should be investigated and examined in light of Scripture, so it is not wrong to question whether the historical view of the Temple Mount is accurate.

There are many more details that could be given here to demonstrate that the historical view of the Temple Mount is accurate and that the alternate location theory is false. The arguments used by Martin, Cornuke, and other ALH proponents are simply not credible, as they are easily refuted by biblical, historical, and archaeological analysis.

All truth claims should be investigated and examined in light of Scripture, so it is not wrong to question whether the historical view of the Temple Mount is accurate. However, to do this, one must at least address the biblical, historical, and archaeological evidence used to support the view. One must also interact with the leading scholarship related to the issue, but ALH proponents typically refuse to do so. For example, Cornuke never interacts with Leen Ritmeyer’s findings in The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is widely regarded as the most comprehensive study of the historical site of the Temple Mount. For his part, Martin once responded to a brief critique of his position by Ritmeyer, but after acknowledging Ritmeyer’s expertise, Martin proceeded to misquote him and include several condescendingly smug phrases while largely ignoring the points of contention.72

Finally, while it is not wrong to question a consensus or near-consensus view of the experts, it is certainly wrong to promote a view such as ALH if one resorts to misrepresenting the Bible, avoiding archaeological data, twisting other historical writings, and besmirching the character and scholarship of those who challenge the ALH.