[This theory I'm abandoning for now Update October 2020]
Almost everyone debating this issue seems to believe The Temple's correct location was still undisputedly known during the Byzantine period, so most trying to remove The Temple from The Temple Mount also try to re-interpret sources like the Bordeaux Pilgrim as describing some place further south which doesn't hold up.
I however have come to think that even during this period the confusion had already started. Maybe the place The Jews were allowed to visit once a year on the 9th of Av was never the proper location, or maybe Helena/Constantine moved that location and the Statue of Hadrian to the current Temple Mount.
Let's start with the fact that I believe Jesus was Crucified East of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, Specifically I believe the location of the Crucifixion, Burial, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus should be looked for directly due East of the Golden Gate which I believe was the Gate of the Triumphal Entry. And thus I believe The Temple should be looked for directly due West of The Golden Gate. That means the only already proposed Temple Mount location that works is the Dome of The Tablets theory or Northern Conjecture.
However if you keep going further West you will wind up at the Church of The Holy Sepulcher which is also directly north of the Zion Gate and where the Upper Room of the Last Supper and Pentecost is traditionally located.
Archaeology has verified that before the Church a Pagan Roman Temple had existed on that site. The popular mythology to explain this is that Hadrian after the Bar Kochba Revolt built a Pagan Temple over the site of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus just as he did over The Jewish Temple, but sources are contradictory on if that Temple was to Venus or also to Jupiter. Thing is the original primary sources on what Hadrian did in Jerusalem do not refer to two Temples, they only refer to one built over The Jewish Temple. And I don't think Hadrian was interested in antagonizing the Christians of the region at this time, they had been persecuted by Bar Kochba for not joining in his revolt, and while Jews were banned from entering Aeilia Capitolina the Greek Christians were allowed to have a community in the city under Bishop Marcus, so I don't think Christian sacred sites were messed with. It's possible this Temple of Jupiter was a Pantheon style Temple that might have included shrines to other deities like Venus.
The fact is the Byzantine Christians treated this Church like it was the a new Temple even though they denied it being literally the same geographical location. That included Apocalyptic works of the period implying the "Abomination of Desolation" would happen there.
This is a hypothesis I by no means consider provable, and since I no longer think there needs to be a Third Temple I feel no particular need to prove it. But it's a possibility I think we should start considering.
To break down the specifics, the core of my hunch is that the Omphalos marks where the Brazen Altar was (which can make the money collection box next to it coincidentally correlate to the "chest" described in 1 Kings 12:9-10). After that things depend on the size of The Temple which there have been different interpretations of since terms like "Cubit" have been defined differently. A smaller model could have the entire Temple within the Catholicon putting the Holy of Holies under the smaller of the two major Domes. A larger model could place the Holy of Holies in the Rotunda, over the Aedicule and under the Dome of the Anastasis. What's interesting about the smaller model however is that it can typologically make the Rotunda fit the royal palace of the Nasi in Ezekiel 40-48 being west of the Holy of Holies.
There are a lot of potential Eschaotlogical implications to this view. From a Preterist, Amillenial or Post-Millenial perspective it can be a pretty unambiguously positive association. But from various Iconoclastic perspectives it can fit a Historicist model where it already is The Abomination of Desolation.
But as a Pre-Millenial Futurist who no longer views a Third Jewish Temple as necessary I can have a more balanced look. The Holy Spirit has kept the site sacred even though post-Pentecost it doesn't actually matter anymore. And the Abomination of Desolation I think will look something like how most Futurists expect it to look, only it can happen in the building already standing there.
Let's start with the fact that I believe Jesus was Crucified East of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, Specifically I believe the location of the Crucifixion, Burial, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus should be looked for directly due East of the Golden Gate which I believe was the Gate of the Triumphal Entry. And thus I believe The Temple should be looked for directly due West of The Golden Gate. That means the only already proposed Temple Mount location that works is the Dome of The Tablets theory or Northern Conjecture.
However if you keep going further West you will wind up at the Church of The Holy Sepulcher which is also directly north of the Zion Gate and where the Upper Room of the Last Supper and Pentecost is traditionally located.
Archaeology has verified that before the Church a Pagan Roman Temple had existed on that site. The popular mythology to explain this is that Hadrian after the Bar Kochba Revolt built a Pagan Temple over the site of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus just as he did over The Jewish Temple, but sources are contradictory on if that Temple was to Venus or also to Jupiter. Thing is the original primary sources on what Hadrian did in Jerusalem do not refer to two Temples, they only refer to one built over The Jewish Temple. And I don't think Hadrian was interested in antagonizing the Christians of the region at this time, they had been persecuted by Bar Kochba for not joining in his revolt, and while Jews were banned from entering Aeilia Capitolina the Greek Christians were allowed to have a community in the city under Bishop Marcus, so I don't think Christian sacred sites were messed with. It's possible this Temple of Jupiter was a Pantheon style Temple that might have included shrines to other deities like Venus.
The fact is the Byzantine Christians treated this Church like it was the a new Temple even though they denied it being literally the same geographical location. That included Apocalyptic works of the period implying the "Abomination of Desolation" would happen there.
This is a hypothesis I by no means consider provable, and since I no longer think there needs to be a Third Temple I feel no particular need to prove it. But it's a possibility I think we should start considering.
To break down the specifics, the core of my hunch is that the Omphalos marks where the Brazen Altar was (which can make the money collection box next to it coincidentally correlate to the "chest" described in 1 Kings 12:9-10). After that things depend on the size of The Temple which there have been different interpretations of since terms like "Cubit" have been defined differently. A smaller model could have the entire Temple within the Catholicon putting the Holy of Holies under the smaller of the two major Domes. A larger model could place the Holy of Holies in the Rotunda, over the Aedicule and under the Dome of the Anastasis. What's interesting about the smaller model however is that it can typologically make the Rotunda fit the royal palace of the Nasi in Ezekiel 40-48 being west of the Holy of Holies.
There are a lot of potential Eschaotlogical implications to this view. From a Preterist, Amillenial or Post-Millenial perspective it can be a pretty unambiguously positive association. But from various Iconoclastic perspectives it can fit a Historicist model where it already is The Abomination of Desolation.
But as a Pre-Millenial Futurist who no longer views a Third Jewish Temple as necessary I can have a more balanced look. The Holy Spirit has kept the site sacred even though post-Pentecost it doesn't actually matter anymore. And the Abomination of Desolation I think will look something like how most Futurists expect it to look, only it can happen in the building already standing there.
No comments:
Post a Comment