"which many books and scholarly treatises have never definitively answered...whether the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of the Rock shrine and Al Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both long since gone."
His theme is
Many historians have said independent scientific verification of such a reference is problematic
The sources for the first temple are solely biblical, and no substantial archaeological remains have been verified
Gladstone, Reporter and Editor on the paper's Foreign Desk recently reported on migrants to Greece and Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN but doesn't seem to have any specific acquaintance with archaeology.
Matthew J. Adams, Dorot director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem appears and is quoted saying, "We just don’t have enough primary source data, textual or archaeological, to say where it was with any confidence...“It’s also an academically complex question.”. Rivka Gonen's boomk is noted. Wendy Pullan is quoted saying "The sources for the first temple are solely biblical, and no substantial archaeological remains have been verified". Jane Cahill, who was a senior staff archaeologist for Hebrew University’s City of David Archaeological Project, says “nobody knows exactly” where the temples once stood, although “pretty powerful circumstantial evidence” suggests they were on the site. Kent Bramlett of La Sierra University in Riverside, Calif. offers that historical records of the Roman committed destruction are “pretty overwhelming” in supporting the existence of the second temple in the immediate vicinity of the Dome of the Rock.
agree that the religious body of evidence, corroborated by other historical accounts and artifacts that have been recovered from the site or nearby, supports the narrative that the Dome of the Rock was built on or close to the place where the Jewish temples once stood.
Of course, the main problem* is excavations and the article informs us that the
Waqf has never permitted invasive archaeological work that could possibly yield proof of either temple.
Because there have been no organized excavations there, and not likely to be, circumstantial evidence is probably all we’re going to have
Another dig at Jewish history and Zionism.
(note: I have added some material after a first posting)^
* A note I received: NYT Article conflates Islamic holiness of Aqsa mosque with Dome of the rock. Of course there's no mention of the doubt that Mohammed or his horse ever visited Jerusalem.
From Martin Kramer:
From Martin Kramer:
In fact, Muslims originally regarded the site as holy precisely because the temples once stood there. To claim otherwise is extremist incitement, of which there’s already plenty to go around.