Searching for the True Location of Solomon’s Temple

 

Solomon’s Temple

Recently, LDS researcher John Pratt (along with V. Garth Norman, Lance Harding, and Jason Jones) wrote a piece for Meridian Magazine entitled “New Proposed Location for Solomon’s Temple” in which he claims to have discovered the original location of Solomon’s Temple (Israel’s first temple) on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. My purpose in writing this post is not so much to analyze or necessarily discredit the work that Pratt has done, but to perhaps provide some alternative ideas regarding where the Temple may have been located. Specifically, I want to present the ideas of Margaret Barker on the topic, which differ quite significantly from the views of Pratt and others.

Pratt, et al., begin their article with a rather broad statement regarding current scholarly opinion about the location of Solomon’s Temple:

Exactly where was Solomon’s temple located? Virtually all investigators agree that it was on the Temple Mount Platform in Jerusalem, but its precise location has been in question.

The main initial reasoning for this conclusion is that “All tradition and evidence indicate that Solomon’s Temple was built at or near David’s Altar, atop the hill formerly known to Abraham as Mount Moriah.”  The popular assumption, which Pratt accepts, is that the big slab of rock that is currently located inside the Muslim Dome of the Rock is the very same rock which both Abraham and David used as an altar.

Although I am quite certain that I heard a very similar theory on a trip to Israel in 1993, I commend Pratt for his dilligent research and desire to find a suitable location for a temple to be built on the Temple Mount platform without disturbing the Dome of the Rock.  However, as I said, this post is not an in-depth analysis of Pratt’s findings.  I am also not going to argue that Pratt did not find something significant. What I would suggest, however, is that we keep in mind that if there is any visible evidence of any ancient temple on top of the Temple Mount platform, it is much more likely to be remains of the Second Temple–more specifically, the Temple of Herod–and not the original Temple of Solomon. 

The Temple Mount

The First Temple, which is what Pratt appears to be looking for evidence of, was destroyed in 587 BC. If the Second Temple was built in the same spot, any remains of the First Temple would have been levelled and built upon–I highly doubt that anything from the First Temple would be visible on top of the current Temple Mount platform.  I am no archaeologist, but it seems to me that that is how these things usually work–newer structures are built on top of older structures, requiring archaeologists to dig down several layers of ruins to find the increasingly ancient structures.

On this note I turn to the theory of Margaret Barker that “the site of the first temple was not the site of the second temple.” To get this theory from the source, you can listen to Barker give a brief overview of her thoughts during her interview with Dr. Bill Hamblin (Margaret Barker Interview – Part 7a–Location of the Temple). Also, she outlines these views in her recent book, The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Basically, her theory is that Solomon’s Temple was built on Mount Zion, which is supposed to be to the southeast of the current Temple Mount, over the sacred Gihon spring. She also cites evidence from the Bible itself indicating that the Second Temple was to be built on a new site. She specifically cites Zechariah 4:6-9, which speaks of the rebuilding of the temple by Zerubbabel.

6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.
7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.
8 Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto you.

Given this visionary statement regarding the site of the new temple, Barker reasons:

Now flattening a mountain top would not have been necessary had the new temple been on the original site…A new site is the most likely explanation for the words in Zechariah about the temple site, especially as Enoch remembers that the original temple was not on the temple mount, but on the hill to the south-east of it. “And from there I was taken to the center of the earth, and I saw a blessed place in which were trees–with branches alive and sprouting from a felled tree. And there I saw a holy mountain. Issuing out from beneath this mountain, from the east side, water flowed down towards the south” (1 Enoch 26:1-2). This stream must be the Gihon spring, which flows from the south-eastern hill, not from the present “Temple Mount” (Hidden Tradition, p. 11).

Although I have been there, I am no expert in the geography of Jerusalem. So, doing the best I can from this description, we can see on the aerial photo below that Barker’s proposed site for the first temple would be situated somewhat above and to the left of the raised Temple Mount (recognizable by the gold-domed Dome of the Rock).

Here is the site from another angle, with Mount Zion pin-pointed to the southeast of the current Temple Mount.

Just for fun, here is another image–looking south from the Mount of Olives.

According to Barker, in her interview with Dr. Hamblin, the location of the original Mount Zion has often been confused. To the south of the Temple Mount there are two hills. The original Mt. Zion is the eastern hill, but many early Christian pilgrims identified the western hill as Mt. Zion–a title that it holds to today.

The Gihon Spring

Barker mentions that Christian Byzantine Emperor Justinian built his version of Ezekiel’s envisioned temple on the spot that he believed to be the location of Solomon’s Temple–Mount Zion. However, he didn’t realize that Mt. Zion had switched from the eastern hill to the western. So his church/temple, the Nea (or the New Church of St. Mary), was intended to be a restoration of Solomon’s Temple on the original site, but was built on the wrong Mt. Zion.  He even had to construct a complex water system under the site in order to match Ezekiel’s description, whereas the original temple would have been built over the Gihon spring to the east. 

The Construction of the Nea Church (Tower of David Museum)

The point, however, is that Justinian knew of the tradition that the original temple had been built on Mt. Zion and not the Temple Mount.

 

Ruins of the Nea

To me, this seems like a more likely theory than that of the Temple Mount theory. The more I read about the Second Temple, the more I come to believe that almost everything about it was different from the first.  It would be very possible for it (and the Temple Mount with it) to have been built in a totally separate location chosen by Zerubbabel and the Zadokite priests.

Dr. Bill Hamblin Interview with Margaret Barker at TempleStudy.com

Attention Margaret Barker fans!! If you haven’t already noticed, Bryce Haymond over at www.templestudy.com has posted a series of videos (with more on the way) of an interview that Dr. William Hamblin of BYU conducted with Barker. The intimate and personal conversation covers many topics, including why Barker decided to study the Temple in the first place, the state of temple studies in the field of religious studies, Barker’s future plans, and information regarding her new book on the original story of Christmas.

Anyone who is interested in Margaret Barker’s research should take advantage of this unique opportunity to see her and hear her talk about her personal life and research. Many thanks to Dr. Hamblin for providing us with this opportunity and to Bryce for making it easily accessible on his great website.

I will take advantage of Bryce’s “ShareThis” function to post links to the videos here on Heavenly Ascents.

Insights from Margaret Barker’s “Temple Themes in Christian Worship”: Part II

     Christians: Heirs of the True Temple

This next installment of my analysis of Margaret Barker’s Temple Themes in Christian Worship is taken from both chapters 2 and 3: “Temple and Synagogue,” and “Sons and Heirs.” In these chapters, Barker continues with her theme of the secret temple tradition and its importance to Christianity. She looks at the importance of temple themes for the study of Christian origins, what this tradition meant for Israel’s Messianic expectations, and also what it meant for the Christian understanding of their own identity. There is so much great information in these chapters that I can only present a brief overview in this post. I highly encourage you to get a copy of this book and read it for yourself. There are many details I couldn’t mention here that are of interest to Latter-day Saints.

First of all, Barker further establishes the need to look to the First Temple (Solomon’s) when attempting a study of the origin of Christian worship. She notes, with dismay, how most scholars try to locate these origins in the tradition of the synagogue rather than the temple. Because details regarding temple worship in this formative period are hard to come by, scholars have a tendency to seek similarities between Christian worship and the worship that took place in the synagogue. According to Barker, however, Christian self-identification sounds more like the Temple than the synagogue.

Any investigation of the origin of Christian worship must take into account the fact that Jesus was proclaimed as the Great High Priest (e.g. Heb. 4.14), and the high priest did not function in a synagogue; that the central message of Christianity was the atonement, a ritual at the heart of temple worship; that the hope for the Messiah was grounded in the royal high priesthood of the original temple; and that the Christians thought of themselves as a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2.9). The great high priest and his royal priests would have been out of place in a synagogue, and a large number of priests joined the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6.7) (p. 20).

Jesus, and his disciples after him, went to the Temple frequently, and its themes pervaded their language and traditions. The Book of Revelation, that apocalyptic expression of Christian worship, has as its setting the Heavenly Temple and is replete with temple imagery.  Barker does an excellent job of presenting the temple themes present in Christian tradition that clearly did not have their roots in the worship of the synagogue. 

Although the temple was so important to the early Christians, Barker explains how, ironically, it is possible that Christians were soon barred from visiting the Temple.  Although Christ and the Apostles were quite at home in the Temple, there came a time when Christians were no longer welcome. Barker cites evidence that besides being expelled from the synagogues, they were also “cut off” from the Temple–declared anathema or “cursed” (see pgs. 36-37).

How, then, did Christian worship involve the Temple if they had no access to it? This is the topic that occupies much of the last part of chapter 2 and then chapter 3. The first obvious answer is that they carried on the temple tradition  without the temple walls. Christians claimed to be “the true heirs to the temple tradition” (p. 38). They did not necessarily need to be in the Temple to carry on its rituals, beliefs, and doctrines. They were “the living stones of the spiritual temple” (1 Pet 2:5), built on the foundation of prophets and apostles (Eph 2:19-22). Like the authors of “The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” at Qumran, Christians could carry on a living temple liturgy without having a literal temple building to perform it in (see pg. 39). Latter-day Saints can perhaps compare this to Joseph Smith performing endowments and other ordinances before the Nauvoo Temple was built.

 Although the idea of the spiritual and heavenly reality of the Temple was important for Christians, they did expect that they would one day have a true, physical temple to worship in. Justin, in his debates with Trypho, assured him that:

I and every other completely orthodox Christian feel certain that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, followed by a thousand years in the rebuilt, embellished and enlarged city of Jerusalem, as announced by the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the others (Trypho 80) (p. 60).

Barker reasons that because Ezekiel had given detailed instructions for the building of a new temple, we can assume that Justin was looking forward to a literal rebuilding. The Christians, similar to the Jews (as expressed in 2 Baruch 32 and elsewhere), believed that, in the future, Jerusalem would be restored to glory and perfected into eternity (see pp. 60-61). This included either a new temple, or that Jerusalem itself would be one huge temple. In any case, Barker notes, “Being a spiritual temple did not mean that they did not hope for a great temple building too” (p. 61).

The hope for a restored temple was part of the millennial hope and messianic expectation. How could a restored Temple be part of the messianic expectation if, at that point, the Temple still stood? Barker reminds us that “Jesus cleansed the temple” (p. 45). This was because the temple of Jesus’ time, the Second Temple, was corrupt. Ever since the Jews rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem, after their return from exile, many had felt it was corrupt-a false temple with a false priesthood, and looked for a restoration of the ancient true temple. This idea is expressed in much of the intertestamental literature, including 1 Enoch, Qumran’s Temple Scroll, 2 Esdras, and others. The Messiah was expected to come and destroy the existing temple and build another. Barker notes that “this implies two things: that there was something seriously wrong with the second temple: and that the messianic hope was rooted in another, earlier temple” (p. 53). She takes John’s vision of the great harlot in Rev 17 to be a description of the corruption of the Second Temple.

[The Temple was,] as the great harlot (Rev. 17.1), dressed in the vestments of the high priesthood — purple and scarlet, gold jewels and pearls -and she had a name on her forehead: ‘Babylon the great…’ (Rev. 17.5), a parody of the Name worn on the forehead by the high priest (Exod. 28.36). The harlot would be burned, a punishment reserved for harlots of the house of Aaron, the high priestly family (Lev. 21.9). There is little doubt who she was. And as she burned, the saints in heaven rejoiced and sang praises to God (Rev. 19.1-3).

Although we see this as a prophecy for the last days, it is likely that John was drawing on images from his own time as a type of what would happen eschatalogically.

 

 

After detailing why the temple and priesthood were considered corrupt, she goes on to say:

The Christian claim is unmistakeable: the corruption of the priesthood had brought the downfall of the temple, and Jesus was the new high priest…[The] former faith, superseded after the exile, was the faith of the first temple, and the evidence is consistent that the priests of the second temple had very different ways. They were an apostate generation whose works were evil (1 Enoch 93.9). The Christians claimed for Jesus the older priesthood of Melchizedek (pp. 56-57, emphasis in original). 

 

 

Insights from Margaret Barker’s “Temple Themes in Christian Worship”

 The Secret Temple Tradition

This begins a series of posts in which I hope to share some of the most exciting insights provided by biblical scholar Margaret Barker in her most recent book, Temple Themes in Christian Worship (T&T Clark International, 2007). Margaret Barker has become well known and well respected in LDS circles because of her research into the Temple, the use of Temple imagery and rituals among the early Christians, and other topics of great interest to LDS readers. Anyone with interests in religious studies should seriously look at her many amazing books. She is one of my favorite authors and I will dedicate many posts to what I have learned from her research. I had the great privilege of meeting her at the 2007 Society of Biblical Literature conference in San Diego, where she spoke on the topic of Melchizedek at an LDS-themed session. LDS readers will find many of her ideas similar to their own beliefs.

You really should read this book, but until you have the opportunity, I hope to share with you some of the points I found most inspiring (although to truly do so would mean reprinting most of the whole book right here).

To begin her study of “temple themes in Christian worship,” Barker begins by giving evidence that there was, in fact, a “secret tradition” of beliefs/practices that had its roots in the ancient Temple of Solomon. Many of the early Church Fathers knew of “authentic Christian traditions not recorded in the Bible” (p. 1).

She cites St. Basil the Great, one of the influential Cappodocian Fathers, as saying:

“Of the dogma and kerygma which are preserved in the Church, we have some from teachings in writing, and the others we have received from the tradition of the apostles, handed down in a mystery“ (On the Holy Spirit 66) (1, emphasis mine).

and also:

“The apostles and fathers who prescribed from the beginning the matters that concerned the Church, guarded in secret and unspoken, the holy things of the mysteries…A whole day would not be long enough from me to go through all the unwritten mysteries of the Church” (On the Holy Spirit 67) (1-2).

The Apostles had passed on teachings that Jesus shared with them in private –the mysteries (Greek mysterion) or “secrets” of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4:11). For Barker, the Kingdom of God is the place of God’s Throne, the Holy of Holies. When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom, he was speaking of the Temple. Jesus had passed on to select disciples the true practices of the ancient Temple; practices not recorded in the Scriptures, nor written down by Jesus’ disciples.  This Temple knowledge was to be passed on unwritten–in secret.

She notes that Josephus recorded a similar practice (of passing on secret traditions) among the Essenes. Entry into their community was very strict, and new members had to swear an oath “invoking the living God and calling to witness his almighty right hand, and the Spirit of God, the incomprehensible, and the Seraphim and Cherubim, who have insight into all, and the whole heavenly host” (Jewish War 2:138 ) (5). The Essene swore that he would reveal none of the sect’s secrets, even under torture.

For the earliest Christians, knowledge of this secret Temple tradition was an important factor in distinguishing true believers from heretics (although this perspective seems to have been reversed later on). Clement of Alexandria identified heretics as those who did not have knowledge of the secret truths: “They do not enter in as we enter in, through the tradition of the Lord, by drawing aside the curtain” (Miscellanies 7:17) (15).

Barker astutely interprets the reference to “the curtain” as an allusion to the Temple veil, and that knowledge gained beyond “the curtain” must have been the sacred truths of the Holy of Holies, reserved for the high priests. “This knowledge concerned the vision of God,” she says, “and had been transmitted by a few ‘having been imparted unwritten by the apostles’ (Miscellanies 6:7)” (15).

The Old Testament potrays the Holy of Holies as having been restricted to the high priests alone. For Christians, Jesus was the great High Priest who had brought them the secrets of the Heavenly Holy of Holies. Besides the knowledge, it appears that Christ also passed on his high priesthood. The early Christians knew John the Beloved to be both a prophet and a high priest (Eusebius, Church History 3:31). Likewise, James was a high priest of the Jerusalem church, and is known to have shared a “secret teaching” that was revealed to him and Peter by the Lord (13).

Furthermore, the Christians, as a group, were “the new royal high priesthood,” according to Origen, and thus worthy to see the Word of God and receive the mysteries of the Temple (Homily 5, On Numbers) (12). Elsewhere in the book, Barker specifically refers to this priesthood as a restoration of “the older priesthood of Melchizedek” (57, emphasis in original).

Jesus brought a restoration of the ancient temple practices that had existed in the First Temple. Temple themes and practices pervaded early Christian beliefs and rituals. Although the original forms and meanings were obscured over time, many themes from these Temple roots can be found in early Christian writings, liturgies, rituals, and architecture. While the early Christians were preserving the ancient Temple tradition, the contemporary Jews were establishing an identity that emphasized “a tradition that had no place for the temple and priesthood” (14).

Margaret Barker’s research in temple traditions gives ample evidence that there was a tradition in early Christianity of a secret teaching that was handed down unwritten from the time of Jesus and the Apostles. It was believed to be the authentic ancient temple tradition, along with its priesthood, restored.