The Temple was on The Temple Mount, I simply haven’t made up my mind where.

The most extreme alternate theories for The Temple’s location are those that remove it from The Temple Mount entirely, I currently see no validity to doing that. But every YouTube video or documentary defending the traditional mainstream view is only dealing with those extreme alternatives, they don’t have much interest in debating where on The Temple Mount.

The well known alternative theories for The Temple Mount are based on it being either further North or further South. The Dome of The Spirits view and the Al-Kas Fountain view are both ones I’ve entertained in the past.  But today the convictions I’ve developed regarding Dominus Flevit as the site of both the Red Heifer offerings and The Crucifixion/Resurrection tell me that the Dome of The Rock is on the right Latitude.

My main issue with The Dome of The Rock however is the ritual Rock, there is no Biblical Basis for The Holy of Holies being built on a Rock, certainly not one as not flat and unsound to build on as that Rock. Indeed, Rock has just about the exact opposite qualities I would expect a “Foundation Stone” to have. 

Indeed the only Biblical basis for the concept of a sacred Foundation Stone is Isaiah 28:16 which is quoted a couple times in The New Testament, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6 but they leave out the word foundation.  These verses however refer to Zion not The Temple Mount, Zion is synonymous with The City of David.  The current mainstream archaeological view on where Zion was is south of the Temple Mount, exactly the place the most well known alternative theory is trying to place The Temple. There is also a long history of giving the name of Zion to the Western Hill south of the Zion Gate where the Church of the Dormition is. I however firmly believe Zion, The City of David is Bethlehem. In The New Testament verses identify that Foundation Stone as in fact a title of The Messiah like the Stone of Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14, that does not contradict there being a real geographical feature Isaiah had in mind but it still could prove futile to look for one. 

However the idea of a Foundation Stone on The Temple Mount does start to develop in post AD 70 Rabbinic Literature.  But it’s complicated.  The Wikipedia page for Foundation Stone quotes midrash Tanhuma (t. Yoma 2:12; y. Yoma 5:3; b. Yoma 54b; PdRK 26:4; Lev. R. 20:4.).

"As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,

so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...

situated in the centre of the world,

and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,

and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,

and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,

and the ark in the centre of the holy place,

and the Foundation Stone before the holy place,

because from it the world was founded."

Based on what is usually meant to be “before” something in the Biblical Hebrew mind this would be placing The Foundation Stone East of The Holy Place. But it’s possible that by this time the use of “before” was already looser. After all Hadria had already rebuilt Jerusalem in such a way that the main entrance to The Temple Mount was now entering from The West. 

But on the subject of that emphasis on centerness, it should be noted that the exact center of The Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, is not the Dome of The Rock but the Dome of the Chain east of The Dome of The Rock. 

The Hasmonean and Herodian expansions of The Temple Complex were to the West, South and North but never moved the Eastern Wall further East. So the original center of the area would have been East of The Dome of The Chain. In Ezekiel 40-48 The Brazen Altar is meant to be the Center of The Temple Complex, it’s likely both Solomon and Zerubabel’s designs were smaller scale versions of that basic idea but then Herod wanted to make it so The Holy of Holies was The Center. 

The 12th Century Islamic author al-Idrisi referred to The Dome of The Chain as The Holy of Holies. Some believe a form of The Dome of The Chain might predate the Islamic Conquest entirely (Archnet: Qubba al-Silsila).

So one of the theories I’m considering is that The Dome of The Chain marks The Holy of Holies, or perhaps more specifically it’s Hexagonal inner arcade.  

Now let’s turn to the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim from AD 333. 

 https://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

If the "Pierced Stone” in that account is the Foundation Stone, even then it should be noted that the Statues of Hadrian are by it not on it.  Jerome in his Commentary on The Bible for Matthew 24:15 said the Mounted Statue of Hadrian was over the site of The Holy of Holies. 

But part of me still thinks the Chamber where Solomon wrote about Wisdom in that account is the Well of Souls and thus the Dome of The Rock’s Foundation Stone is its roof. 

Bordeaux Pilgrim also refer to a visible Blood Stain that they identify as when Zacheriah was killed in The Temple, but I highly doubt the Blood from that incident wasn't cleaned up right away.  Since the Second Temple never had the Ark this could be the spot where The Ark supposed to be and that Blood is the Blood all those dead Goats sprinkled there every Yom Kippur for centuries. 

Some Traditional Biblical Geography identifications can’t both be correct.

The people who think none of the Mainstream Traditional locations for Biblical Sites are true and want to argue for some alt theory for every single one are kind of silly, I say that as someone who used to be pretty close to being like that. 

However those who think Tradition is wrong on absolutely none of them also inevitably face problems.

The design of The Tabernacle and Temple were both based on the idea that the Sanctuary should eb facing West and entered from The East. This distinct from a lot of ancient culture, the Mesopotamians and Greeks and Romans all tended to prefer the exact opposite.  This fact is important to what will be discussed going forward. 

Two current traditional locations that can’t both be true are The Temple being where The Dome of The Rock is and The Golden Gate’s current location. Because the Eastern Gate is obviously self evidently supposed to be lined up with The Temple. 

I’ve seen exactly one attempt to deconstruct that notion, and that was someone arguing those who think the Eastern Gate has to be lined up with The Temple are confusing it with the Nicanor Gate which was a Gate in The Temple itself. But that’s besides the point, the point is all these Gates should be lined up, it doesn’t matter if no single verse of scripture explicitly says that, that is simply how Ancient cities were designed. There were times like on Yom Kippur when people would have to walk from outside the city entirely directly into The Temple, The High Priest into the Holy of Holies itself, and that path not being a straight line would have been very inconvenient. 

And even to my modern eyes used to more complex modern city layouts it still feels wrong when I look at modern Jerusalem from the east and the big fancy gate on its Eastern Wall isn’t lined up with the Most Sacred Holy Place.  If I saw a JRPG city laid out like this I’d call it bad design. 

The Eastern Wall of Second Temple Jerusalem had already been completely destroyed in AD 70 as documented by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter I where only the Western Wall was left.

If it’s The Golden Gate that is currently in the wrong place the change probably began with Hadrian’s rebuilding of Jerusalem as a Aelia Capitolina, any further construction done later by the Byzantines, Muslims or Ottomans were building on that blueprint.  Hadrian’s major Temples on The Temple Mount aren’t believed to have been lined up with this Gate either, but it is lined up with The Church of The Holy Sepulcher where Hadrian had built a Temple to Aphrodite. 

But what’s most important here is that Roman City and Temple design would not have been primarily based on facing West and entering from The East but rather if anything the opposite. If the current layout of The Temple Mount is still primarily based on how Hadrian redesigned it as I suspect then that fits as the main stairs to access it are approaching The Dome of The Rock from The West, the Ablution Gate and Cotton Merchants Gate.

But also if Hadrian’s Jupiter Temple Complex on The Temple Mount was following a similar pattern to the one he also had built at Baalbek (they are believed to have had the same architect) then based on how they lined up the main ceremonial entrance would have been from the North traveling southward. So the East Gate leading to a spot north of everything makes sense in that context. 

I have not 100% made up my mind yet. But these reasons are causing me to reverse my past position that it’s The Temple location that needs to be changed. 

Rabbi Yonatan Adler’s argument that the site of the Red Heifer sacrifice, which had to be directly East of The Temple at a spot where you could see directly into The Temple, was a location now in the courtyard of the modern Dominus Flevit Church, begins with the assumption that The Temple was where The Dome of The Rock currently is, but there were other details he was also looking for based on what The Mishna and Talmud say about where the Second Temple period Red Heifer sacrifices were made and he found them here.  If he made the investigation based on a different Temple location I have my doubts the other details would have lined up nearly as well. 

Wikipedia sites Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 11 Section 7 as saying the Eastern Gate was in the North Eastern Extremity of the Inner Sacred Court.  But what the text actually says is a lot less clear.  

"There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings. It is also reported,494 that during the time that the temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the temple."

He's alluding to some sort of underground passage from the Antonia Fortress to near the East Gate of The Temple itself.  So I don't think this is much of a clue to where any of the Gates actually were. 

I no longer support the supposed Simon Ossuary found at Dominus Flevit being Peter

To be clear, I still believe Peter was never actually in Rome, or at least not in the way traditionally thought.  And I still believe the First Century Ossuaries found at Dominus Flevit were Early Christians and that this Simon is likely one of the Simons mentioned in The New Testament.

First of all I believe even if Peter’s remains wound up in this style of Ossuary the name of Cepha or Petros would also be on, that isn’t just presented as Nick Name in The Bible but a full on new Name. 

Second, I do not believe Peter’s Father was actually named Jonah.  Sometimes in The Bible a “Son of” designation is poetic rather than literal. The only time Simon Peter is called Simon son of Jonas is in John 21 in the same narrative where Jesus prophesies Peter’s fate saying he’ll be taken to a place he didn’t want to go, like what happened to the Prophet Jonah. 

If the alternate reading of the name on this Ossuary as “Simon Bar Zilla” is correct, that could perhaps most likely refer to Simon Zealots who I do not believe was called that because he was a member of the Zealot sect.  But another candidate could be Simon The Leper (Jar Maker in the Peshita) who lived in Bethany and seems to be part of the same household as Mary, Martha and Lazarus, some even argue he’s the same person as Lazarus.  Or Simon of Cyrene.  I rule out the half brother of Jesus only because his patronym would have been Bar Yosef or Ben Yosef. 

One current theory I have on Peter's fate is that he was among the Jews who were burned at the stake in Antioch in AD 67 after being falsely blamed for a plot to burn the city down as recounted by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter 3. So perhaps his burial place should be looked for there. But there probably wasn't a grave or tomb in that scenario since only ashes were left.