And perhaps also his corresponding site for Golgotha, even though I had been hostile to it at first. But aspects of how he makes the argument are still wrong.
First because Zion the City of David was not Jerusalem at all but Bethlehem. But what that means is verses saying the Ark was taken out of the City of David when placed in the Temple are no longer against Cornuke's site. I do believe what we today call the Old City was Jebus, and perhaps remained the entirety of Jerusalem until the return from Captivity. Perhaps Nob and Gibeon were what we now call The Temple Mount?
Another argument against Cornuke's site is saying a threshing floor wouldn't be near a Spring because of contamination risks. But I have also argued that The Temple wasn't on the threshing floor, the threshing floor must be east of Jerusalem since Yahuah stopped there approaching Jerusalem. Maybe 1 Chronicles 3:1 is just saying aspects of the Construction began there, perhaps materials were built and ritually purified there before being moved into the city. Genesis 22 tells me that Moriah is the site of the Crucifixion not The Temple.
Stephen in Acts 7:44-50 says Solomon didn't follow David's intent for The Temple. I think the Eschatological Tabernacle will be Zion.
As far as if what we today call the Gihon Spring is the Biblical Gihon, well what the name Gihon refers to is the most confusing subject of all, since it's a River in Genesis 2. And if you don't think that's the same Gihon then you can't prove the Gihon associated with Solomon's coronation is the same one associated with Hezekiah either.
I still think it's possible the first and second Temples weren't on the same spot. If Cornuke's site is only one of them it's probably Solomon's. The thing is so much debate about The Temple focuses on what Mountain or Hill it was built on when I suspect Solomon's Temple wasn't on a mountain at all, I think when he was at the High Place at Gideon Yahuah made him realize the Tabernacle shouldn't be on a High Place.
I spent over a year being very interested in the theory that The Temple was were Justinian built the Nea Eklessia of the Theotokos, where now stands the Armenian Church of the Archangels and the Garden of the Resurrection. And I still think Justinian might have believed he was rebuilding The Temple. But there are some issues with this argument.
They use quotes from Medieval Rabbis saying the Gentiles never built on the site of The Temple, maybe the Nea had been forgotten by the Jews by that time, but it's also possible the "Market of the Jews" actually refereed to the Old City not what we now call the Jewish Quarter.
And the thing about the orientation of that first century synagogue is, I don't think the idea of needing to Pray in the direction of The Temple existed yet in the first century, neither Testament of The Bible alludes to such an idea. I think it's a post 70 AD Rabbinic custom that influenced the development of Islam.
I think maybe the next archeological mystery Cornuke should tackle is The Nativity, I don't think Jesus was born at the traditional site of the Nativity which was an Adonis Cave. I've talked about how the Church of St David by King David's Wells claims to be where David was buried, well right by it is a Church of St Joseph. I believe Jesus was born in a House Joseph owned. And Conruke could also look for the Migdol Eder while he's at it.
I don't agree with the traditional site of Kiriath-Jearim either, since it's too far north. As a city that like Jebus marked the border between Benjamin and Judah I think it was probably on close to the same latitude as the Old City. But since it's ultimately on Judah's side unlike Jebus which was on Benjamin's side, that makes it if anything a little south of the Old City.
If it was west of Jebus, then I think it may have been on what we today know as the Western hill, primarily south of the modern Zion Gate of Suiliman's Wall. But if it was East of Jebus, then perhaps the Ark once rested where Jesus was buried,. A possibility I consider symbolically interesting since one of the few times that Hebrew word for Ark is used in reference to something other then The Ark is also the first time it's used, in the last verse of Genesis where the KJV translates it "Coffin" referring to the burial of Joseph who was a type of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment