The Jewish Temple Was Not at the Dome of the Rock

Multiple, irrefutable flaws void claims that Judaism'sregarding the impact of Olivet contours in these
Temple in Jerusalem was located at the presentanalyses.
mosque, The Dome of the Rock. Convincing evidenceALL ASHES POURED-OUT AT THE MIPHKAD
from Mt. of Olives contours demonstrate vitalALTAR
importance of the Law of the Red Heifer in suchThe Miphkad Altar was located at the spot on the
analyses. Details about Temple articles, cubit lengths,Mount of Olives where ALL burnt offerings as well as
archaeological finds and "threshingfloor" function bringALL ashes and scorched remains, etc. from the
emphatic evidence to force an obvious conclusion onsacrifices at the Temple Altar were "poured out."
this question.These ashes were to "naturally pour down" toward
TWO RIVAL THEORIESthe Temple. Whereas, from evidence of Centerists'
Various scholars challenge Asher Kaufman'spositions on that same map for the kohain and the
conclusion that the Holy of Holies was located at theMiphkad Altar, the ashes would most certainly not
present position on the Temple Mount identified as the"naturally pour down" toward the Temple. In fact, they
Dome of the Tablets. That point is about 100 meterswould just stream downhill in an indiscriminate direction,
northwest of the "traditional" Temple position at theif anything - southeastwardly and away from the
Dome of the Rock. Despite the amount and quality ofTemple! (Ref. Ex. 29:14, Lev. 4:11 - 12, 16:27 - Yoma 68
evidence, overwhelmingly convincing in favor ofand Zebahim 105b)
Kaufman's analysis, two respected scholars, Dr. LeenABUNDANCE OF FAULTS IN THE DOME OF THE
Ritmeyer and Dr. David Jacobson, - identified asROCK SITE
"Central Theorists" - insist the traditional site at theMiddoth 2:3 states that all Temple steps were half a
Dome of the Rock is authentic. The fundamentalcubit in height. Using Ritmeyer's Royal cubit would result
argument involves conclusions of each scholarin Temple steps being 10 to 11 in. high. Anthropological
concerning exact location of the Shethiyah; i.e., thedata, as well as archaeological evidence shows,
Foundation Stone where the Ark of The Covenanttypically, Jewish men of the 1st century were very
Ark rested in Solomon's Temple.short in stature. There were no railings or banisters on
TEMPLE WAS NOT AT THE DOME OF THE ROCKthe steps leading up to the Temple. Steps of such
We shall demonstrate why neither of the Centerist'sheight then certainly would have been difficult for short
conclusions is valid, primarily based upon the Law ofJudean legs to climb, especially without the support of
the Red Heifer, as well as other factors. We submita rail or banister. Even six-footers today would find
several data items positively indicating towardsuch stairs an "exerting" challenge.
accepting Asher Kaufman's proposed site at theYoma 5:4 describes the Shethiyah (Foundation Stone),
Dome of the Tablets. Still, no conclusive evidence isupon which the Holy Ark rested, as a projection
available at present that prove Prof. Kaufman'sextending three fingers above ground. - In contrast,
conclusion is correct. Nevertheless, we remainRitmeyer proposes a rectangular depression in the
confident the evidence presented shows that surelyrock under the Dome of the Rock, purportedly the
the Dome of the Rock cannot be the correct site. Thesame size as the Holy Ark (using Royal cubit size),
most obvious and most disqualifying defect in Centralhaving been cut several centimeters deep into the
Theorist proposals is lack of compliance with rituals inrock. That rectangular depression must therefore be
the Talmudic Law of the Red Heifer ceremony. Thatrejected as the Shethiyah.
Temple rite is THE most important element of TempleOne of the most convincing archaeological features of
worship, because ALL Temple articles must be purifiedthe Temple Mount supporting Kaufman's proposal,
by the ashes of the Red Heifer before any worshipwhile simultaneously and equally convincingly negating
can be conducted. There also are many other faults.claims for the Dome of the Rock, is what must be
Major contributions to Centerist errors result throughconsidered the obvious near proximity of the Fortress
improper choices of cubit lengths, far exceedingof Antonia. Surviving ruins of that structure are
Jewish historians' descriptions of that measuring unit.supported by most scholars as an "authenticated" site.
Accurate cubit measurement is demonstrated asAntonia's Southeast Tower was adjacent Temple
vitally critical in this analysis. Concurrent to thatnorthern courts.
inaccuracy is the location of the Dome of the Rock. ItThat tower, according to Josephus, Wars 5.5.8/242 -
is more easterly on the Temple Mount, resulting in244, was erected adjacent to the north wall of the
placing the kohain (priest) too far east on the Mt. ofTemple and was much taller (70 cubits vs. 50 cubits)
Olives.than the other three towers. In this way, activities of
THE LAW OF THE RED HEIFER IS PARAMOUNTJews in Temple courts below could be monitored for
Principal among Centerist failures within The Law is theformation of plots for mischief and rebellions, just by
kohain's inability to view the doors of the Temple fromnoting "who" was talking with "whom," "when," etc.
the point on the Mount of Olives where CenteristMenahoth 98a specifies the Ark was oriented with the
analyses would position the Miphkad Altar. The priestlonger axis extending parallel to the Temple width; i.e.,
must stand at that point, viewing the Temple doors, asnorth - south. The rectangular depression proposed by
he sprinkles the heifer's blood "directly toward theRitmeyer is oriented with the long axis parallel to the
Tabernacle." The Miphkad Altar must be locatedTemple length, east - west. Ritmeyer attempts to
"outside the camp;" i.e., one Sabbath Limit (approx. 1000rationalize that orientation, saying of the "staves" (or
yds.) due east from the Holy of Holies in the Temple."poles") the bearers used to carry the Holy Ark: "The
All Centerists position the kohain, as he stands behindonly way to remove the staves was by keeping the
the Miphkad Altar, on the "flat" summit of the Mount ofshort side facing the partition that separated the Holy
Olives. Sectioning from map contours for that mountof Holies from the Holy Place." That declaration is
clearly illustrates the kohain's inability to view therefuted in Exodus 25:15 as well as Talmud Yoma 72a
Temple doors from such a position. He would needand Makkoth 22a confirming the staves were
actually to see through the mountain! -- Again, thispermanently installed through the support rings and
failure is the single most serious failing in Centralcould never be removed.
Theorist proposals reviewed to date.Further, it would be "profane" to face the Ark as
CUBIT SIZE IS VITALLY IMPORTANTRitmeyer proposes, since the cherubim were at the
Ritmeyer's entire thesis is founded upon a "Royal" cubitends of the Ark. Such arrangement would have one
dimension = 20.67 in. = 52.5 cm. There is no foundationcherub standing in front of the Lord's Presence! - His
for use of a Royal cubit, of more than sevenShekhinah -- Never! - Again, on basis of historical
handbreadths in length, in any Jewish Templerecords of Temple details, the rectangular depression
construction. Many other cultures existing throughoutcannot qualify as the Shethiyah.
ancient history used what were termed "Royal cubits"THE SHETHIYAH MUST BE A THRESHINGFLOOR
- having greatly diverse lengths. The cubit of Arye benThe Rock in no way fits requirements for a
David at 22.08 in = 56.08 cm., has been mentioned by"threshingfloor." There is hardly a smooth, flat spot
certain scholars, and is in fact nearly eightanywhere on that huge rock formation. However, the
handbreadths in length! Talmud specifies thatsmooth, flat, circular stone beneath the humble little
Solomon's Temple was based upon the "Standard"Dome of the Tablets meets all criteria for a perfect
Moses' cubit = six handbreadths and the Secondthreshingfloor, as was purchased from Araunah, the
Temple was built with a slightly (1/2 "fingerbreadth")Jebusite, by King David, (II Samuel 24:24).
longer cubit. This was done to reduce possibility that aCONCLUSIONS
contractor might even unintentionally fabricate a pieceWe have shown several of the most significant faults
that would be short. - A sort of tolerance "pad," if youin claiming the Dome of the Rock as the Jewish
will, in order that he would avoid "offence" against TheTemple site. Principally, these are: topographical
House through "liability to a trespass offering."limitations preventing the kohain from observing the
(Pesachim 86a)Temple doors in compliance with Laws of the Red
Jacobson specified cubit length = 0.465 meters, sayingHeifer Ceremony and ninety degrees improper
it is "about 18 inches." Actually, it is 18.307 in. Consideringorientation of the Rock's "rectangular depression," and
critical effects of cubit dimensions in these analyses,lack of characteristics required for the surface
"about" is an inappropriate word. It is apparent that hissupporting the Holy Ark, the Shethiyah, to have been a
analysis did not consider the Sabbath Limit (almost"threshingfloor." Asher Kaufman's site appears to be
2000 cubits) to the kohain's station. Cubit length at suchmuch more authentic, based upon Biblical, historical,
distance is obviously critical. This is especially importantarchaeological and geological evidence.