Jerusalem temple

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reconstructed interior of the tent sanctuary ( Mischkan ) according to the instructions of the Torah, model by Michael Osnis. The establishment of the Hehal in the second temple is practically identical: the front of the altar for the incense, behind the seven candlesticks ( Menora ) and the tower-like acting due to the stacked loaves show bread table . In the background the curtain of the Holy of Holies.

The Jerusalem Temple ( Hebrew בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ Bet HaMikdasch ) was on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The term refers to two sanctuaries from different times, both of which no longer exist today:

  • Second temple: main shrine for the Judeans who returned from exile, built under the Persian governor Zerubbabel around 515 BC. BC, rebuilt several times and greatly expanded and redesigned under Herod the Great ( Herodian Temple ); Looted, set on fire and destroyed during the conquest of Jerusalem by Roman troops in AD 70.

The appearance and furnishings of both temples are described in ancient written sources. Their interpretation is the subject of biblical studies ( Old Testament ) and Judaic studies .

The enclosing walls of the Herodian temple platform (not the actual temple building) are partially preserved in the current enclosing walls. A section of the wall in the west is known as the Western Wall and is now considered the most important holy place in Judaism. While the temple existed, this wall had no particular religious relevance.

The Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque , which are aligned with the holy places in Mecca and Medina , the most important shrines for Muslims, are now on the Temple Mount itself .

Tent sanctuary (mishcan, tabernacle)

In 2. Book of Moses ( Ex 25–27  EU and Ex 36–39  EU ) the construction of a dismountable and transportable tent sanctuary is described in detail. It is called the "tent of meeting" ( Ex 27.21  EU ).

The Torah distinguishes two zones in the conception of this sanctuary:

  1. the forecourt with basin and altar of burnt offering ;
  2. the interior furnished with an incense altar, candlestick and showbread table, this is the "workplace of the high priest".

Some researchers believe that details in the description of the tent sanctuary and its ceremonies actually come from the cult of the Jerusalem temple and were retrospectively projected back onto the tent sanctuary. Julius Wellhausen had already pointedly formulated this idea : the temple is so indispensable for the priestly scriptures “that it is made portable and transported back to prehistoric times as a tabernacle. Because this is in truth not the archetype, but the copy of the Jerusalem temple. "

In any case, the Torah uses the Mishkan as a model to describe sacrificial and purification rituals. The processes in the Jerusalem temple must be made accessible by transferring these orders to the conditions in a stone sanctuary.

First (or Solomonic) temple


Only the Hebrew Bible contains information about the First Temple .

The most important source is the building report 1 Kings 5.15–6.38  EU . There are divergent views on the dating of this source. There is evidence that the text was written in the late period of the Kingdom of Judah and may also describe the temple as it looked at the time it was written. This description of the First Temple and the description of the tent sanctuary in the Torah influenced one another.

The chronic report 2 Chr 1,18-5,1  EU is considered younger, it contains the localization on Mount Moria as a special item and does not mention the connection between temple and palace building. In the conception of the chronicle books, the temple building by Solomon is of central importance. The temple is - singularly in the Old Testament - characterized as a “sacrificial house” ( 2 Chr 7,12  EU ), and from the perspective of chronological history it is the one temple: “The merging of the first and second temple is sufficient in the Text world so far that a separation can hardly be made between the two. "

Dating of the new temple building (10th / 9th century BC)

According to biblical information ( 1 Kings 6,1  EU ) the construction of the temple of Solomon began in the fourth year of his reign. The construction time was seven years ( 1 Kings 6.38  EU ). The reign of Solomon is given by the Bible as forty years, a round, symbolic number. The assessment of details such as the fourth year of the reign as the start of construction and the seven-year construction period, however, depends on whether 1 Kings was based on a source that was written down promptly. If there was a great Davidic-Solomonic empire , then literature emerged at the court of Solomon in the 10th century BC. BC conceivable; this hypothesis, which was generally accepted in Old Testament science until the 1990s, has since been abandoned by many exegetes.

Older exegetical consensus

In the second half of the 20th century, an image of the reign of Solomon was established in German-language biblical studies, which is presented below after Antonius HJ Gunneweg . He saw Solomon as a powerful ruler who built several cities ( Hazor , Megiddo , Beth Horon) as fortresses and, through his international trade contacts, also had the means to have a luxurious palace built in Jerusalem, significantly larger than the temple: “So build a despot in full awareness of the power given to him by God, who knows himself to be the son of this god and therefore lives as a neighbor of this god. ”This is why the temple is called a“ palace chapel ”by some authors. Jerusalem, along with the palace and temple, was the "brilliant residence of the great Davidic-Solomonic empire".

After several decades of intensive archaeological research in Israel and especially in Jerusalem ( City of David ), only a few finds could be assigned to this cultural heyday; in other findings, the dating to the Solomonic period was revoked or questioned. As a result, the older exegetical consensus is less convincing today, but it still has many supporters.

Thesis by Israel Finkelstein

A research group led by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman considers the biblical account of the time of David and Solomon to be a work of literature that cannot be reconciled with the archaeological finds of the 10th century ( Low Chronology: Iron Age I). According to the basic thesis, there was no great empire under Solomon, no representative building projects by this ruler and also not the impressive temple described in the 1st Book of Kings. At most, the means of historical Solomon would have been sufficient for a modest local sanctuary.

Finkelstein / Silberman affirm positively that the description of the First Temple in 1 Kings 6–7 comes from someone who knew this temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians, well from his own experience. In 2 Kings 12  EU a renovation of the temple under King Joasch (end of the 9th century BC) is reported; Finkelstein / Silberman consider whether a memory of the construction of the great temple described in 1 Kings 6–7 is tangible in this report, which could have replaced a humble temple that was traced back to Solomon. At the time of Joash, the kingdom of Judah experienced an economic boom, in which a major construction project was well conceivable.

Building description

The temple of Tell Ain Dara looked particularly similar to the Solomonic Temple. Here, too, the sanctuary was bordered by side rooms on three sides, and the entrance to the vestibule was flanked by a pair of columns.
The temple of Tell Ta'yinat shows the same three-part structure as the Jerusalem temple
Several metal tank wagons are known from Cyprus, which are compared with the devices in the Temple of Solomon (Neues Museum Berlin)

The description of the Temple of Solomon corresponds to the typical regional temple architecture of the Iron Age: a long-space temple with a 5-meter-deep vestibule ( Hebrew אולם Ulam ), a main room ( Hebrew היכל Hechal ) and a Holy of Holies ( Hebrew דביר Debir ; New Hebrew pronunciation: Dvir ). About 50 meters long and 25 meters wide, assuming the biblical dimensions, this would be the largest pre-Hellenistic temple in Palestine. Even with its height of 15 meters, it would have been an impressive building for its time. The Bible text contains some construction details: The roof beams made of cedar wood therefore rested on diagonal supports and cantilever beams that were embedded in the side walls. In the north, west and south the main room was surrounded by side rooms. The paneling with precious woods is described in detail.

Research answers differently whether the Debir was a separate room behind the main room (according to Martin Noth ) or whether this was a wooden, cubic shrine that stood in the back of the main room. The Debir had the ideal shape of a cube with a side length of 20 cubits. In it were carved, gilded figures depicting kerubim , which looked into the main room and formed a kerubim throne . The Ark of the Covenant was also here.

In front of the entrance to the Holy of Holies, five golden candlesticks were set up on the right and left.

The forecourt of the temple made a completely different impression on the visitors than the forecourt of the Second Temple, because here were pieces of furniture that were destroyed by the New Babylonians and not remade when the Second Temple was built:

The metal devices and the two pillars symbolized different aspects of creation . Compared to metal temple implements found by archaeologists in neighboring cultures, the metal implements described in the Bible were very large.

The great altar of burnt offerings ( Hebrew מזבח Mizbeach ) stood in front of the sanctuary and is not yet mentioned in the temple building report of 1 Kings 5–6. It may have been built under Ahaz ( 2 Kings 16.10–13  EU ). A probably similar looking altar is described in Ez 43,13-17  EU . The whole sacrificial animal, which had been cut into pieces, was burned on this altar.

Cult operation

In pre-exilic times, worshipers could stay in the main room (hechal) of a YHWH shrine; In the second temple, entry was only allowed for priests.

Some exegetes largely assign the cult regulations of the Torah to the post-exilic period or the Second Temple and therefore suspect that other rituals and festivals took place in the First Temple that could only be deduced indirectly from the Hebrew Bible. The accession festival of YHWH is discussed as the main festival .

More contemporary places of worship for YHWH

The temple in Jerusalem was not the only place of worship in pre-exilic times where YHWH was worshiped; there were more:

  • Shrine in Shiloh ( 1 Sam 1–4  EU );
  • Sanctuaries of Dan and Bet-El ( 1 Kings 2 : 28-29  EU );
  • Tel Arad sanctuary , archaeologically proven.

Contribution of archeology

The biblical account mentions that Phoenician experts were involved in the construction of the Temple of Solomon. Archeology can enrich knowledge of the First Temple by studying comparable Iron Age city temples in the Levant:

All temples were considered the house of one deity. The holiness increased from the outside to the inside, so that a "sacral focus" (depending on a cult image or cult symbol) can be expected on the wall opposite the entrance, surrounded by a sacred central area. The main aniconical cult symbol of the Levant was the mazzebe . There are also iconic cult symbols that did not represent the deity itself, but symbolized its invisible presence, such as the sphinx or kerub throne. Several specimens of this were found in the Levant - parallels to the Kerubenthron in the First Temple.

Destruction and continuity

Group of Sphingian Thrones ( Beirut National Museum )

According to biblical sources, the destruction of the palace and temple, which formed a common building complex, did not take place until about a month after the New Babylonians took Jerusalem ( 2 Kings 25.8–17  EU ). Temple demolitions were uncommon in neo-Babylonian politics. Nebuchadnezzar decided on this punitive measure only after questioning members of the government. It had probably come to light that the rebels around Zedekia, in their militarily hopeless situation, believed that the city would be impregnable through the YHWH temple (so-called Zion theology, 2 Kings 19,32-34  EU ).

Lists of temple inventory

Lists of temple implements have come down to us from the final phase of the Kingdom of Judah: Jer 52.17–23  EU and 2 Kings 25.13–17  EU .

They create a continuity between the First Temple and the Persian new building of the Second Temple. According to Jer 27-28  EU , there were disputes among the prophets as to whether the devices that had already been confiscated would be returned by the Babylonians. After Ezr 1,7–11  EU , some of the devices returned to Jerusalem with the returnees from the Babylonian exile.

Alleged individual finds from the First Temple

Since the inscription on the ivory pomegranate is believed to be a forgery by the majority of experts, no objects from the First Temple are known today. After the extensive renovation work under Herod, including the filling of the temple terrace (see below), remains of the Iron Age buildings on the Temple Mount are no longer to be expected - even if archaeological research were possible there.

Another sensational news was the alleged find in January 2003 of an inscribed sandstone tablet the size of a shoebox, which would have confirmed the biblical report of the temple restoration by King Joasch if it were authentic ( 2 Kings 12  EU ). It had appeared on the antique market, was in very good condition and had a patina that experts believed to be genuine. It is said to have come from the Muslim cemetery on the east side of the Temple Mount. Gabriel Barkay considered the Joasch plaque to be the “most important find in the history of Israel.” Reinhard Lehmann and Wolfgang Zwickel from the University of Mainz - just like Israeli epigraphers - doubted its authenticity shortly after the inscription became known. The Israel Antiquities Authority declared in June 2003 that the Joasch inscription was a forgery.

Second temple

New temple of Zerubbabel (6th century BC)

A few decades after the Jews returned from exile in Babylon, the second temple was built in Jerusalem. Only modest resources were available for this. To distinguish it from later reconstructions, this Persian temple building is sometimes named after the governor Zerubbabel  in research. The disputes about the new building of the temple found their literary expression in the book Haggai , and some of the Elephantine papyri shed light on the historical background. While it was not the only sanctuary to YHWH, it became the center of the Jewish diaspora , a place to go for inquiries and where to orientate yourself in prayer.

According to Esr 6.3–7  EU , the second temple was built on the foundations of the destroyed previous building. So the First Temple was rebuilt in a simple form. However, there was no longer a Kerubenthron in the Holy of Holies, but this was a completely empty room separated by a curtain. Instead of ten candlesticks, there was a seven-armed candlestick in the Second Temple, the menorah , which was to become a symbol of Judaism.

Flavius ​​Josephus quotes a description by Hekataios of Abdera . According to this, the perimeter wall of the temple area was 500 feet (about 150 m) long, the width of the courtyard was 100 cubits (about 45 m), in the courtyard was a square altar made of white, uncut stones, 20 cubits (nine meters) at the Sides and ten cubits high, and inside the temple only a candlestick and an altar, both of gold and two talents heavy. In addition, a light was always on in the temple.

More contemporary places of worship for YHWH

The temple in Jerusalem was not the only place of worship in the post-exile period where YHWH was worshiped; there were more:

Confiscation of the temple for the cult of Zeus Olympos

The temple was built under the rule of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes in December of the year 167 BC. Desecrated. It is believed that a pro- Hellenistic group of Jerusalemites with seleuzidischer support and approval the sanctuary to Zeus dedicated Olympos, as to the sanctuary of the parallel Samaritans on Mount Gerizim to Zeus Xenios was ordained. From the point of view of the pro-Hellenistic faction, this was not a new cult, but the Interpretatio Graeca of the heaven god worshiped by the Jews in Jerusalem.

The change was made concrete by a new object in YHWH's temple, which the Bible calls the "abomination of desolation" ( Hebrew שקוץ משומם Schiqquts Meschomem , Dan 11.31  EU ). Elias Bickermann's thesis has been adopted by many researchers. He suspected that the cult of the Syrian-Phoenician sky god Baal Shamem , identified with Zeus, had been introduced in Jerusalem , whose name had been corrupted to Schiqqut's Meschomem . A mazzebe was said to have been placed on the altar of burnt offerings . However, the right place for a cult symbol in the sanctuary was not on the altar. Therefore Martin Hengel suspected that the large altar of burnt offerings had been redesigned. A smaller altar was placed on the plateau of the burnt offering altar and a relief was added on which a symbol of Zeus Olympos could be seen. According to Josephus, pigs ( pig farming in ancient times ) were sacrificed on this altar .

Restoration of the YHWH cult

Judas Maccabeus restored the traditional cult. He had the altar torn down because it had been desecrated by the sacrifices according to Greek ritual. Then a new altar was built. The temple was consecrated at the end of 164 BC. Chr. And is remembered in the Hanukkah festival to this day . To protect the temple, Judas had Mount Zion fortified militarily. Soon afterwards, Lysias besieged Judas Maccabeus in Jerusalem, but concluded a compromise peace in 162 which guaranteed the free practice of the Jewish religion. However, the temple wall was razed.

Herodian temple

Compass Rose de small WNW.svg
Temple Square in the Holyland model (view from the east)

Temple construction (21–19 BC)

The Second Temple had become dilapidated over time. Herod the Great therefore began in 21 BC. With a fundamental redesign of the temple, which also became his most demanding building project. The actual temple building was completed within just a year and a half and inaugurated with great splendor. The redesign of the entire Temple Mount complex, however, dragged on long after Herod's death and was only completed shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish War.

The temple house itself was a relatively conservative building, based on the previous temples. The temple complex as a whole, which followed a Hellenistic architectural prototype, is different: a large sacred area ( Temenos ) in the form of an artificial platform with colonnades on three sides and a basilica on the fourth side.

The temple platform (about 141,280 m 2 ) has the shape of a trapezoid: the current enclosing walls are 487 m in length in the west, 315 m in the north (here Antonia Castle protruded a bit into the temple grounds, which is why the ancient wall ran along it slightly different), 466 m in the east and 279 m in the south. This made the Herodian Temple the largest temple complex in the ancient Mediterranean in its time.

Since Jerusalem was always conquered from the north, the fortification of the temple area also had a “first-rate strategic function.” According to Johann Maier, the connection of religious and military aspects in the construction program of the Herodian Temple sealed its fate in the Jewish War: defeat was synonymous with temple destruction, triumph was synonymous with displaying captured temple implements (cf. Arch of Titus in Rome).


During the Jewish-Roman war , the temple was held by the defenders until the end, and when it was captured by the Roman legionaries in August 70 AD, it was set on fire and looted. As a chronicler of these events, Flavius ​​Josephus wants to absolve the Roman commander and later Emperor Titus of responsibility. In contrast to the First Temple, there are individual finds from the temple grounds as well as remains of the building fabric in and in front of the surrounding walls.

Subsequent development of the temple area

The ruins of the Herodian Temple remained after it was conquered and burned. When a new Roman city ( Aelia Capitolina ) was built in place of Jerusalem under Emperor Hadrian , it also received a representative Temple of Jupiter. The question is, however, where it was: on the temple grounds or in the center of the city (Temenos near the forum, area of ​​the Constantinian Church of the Holy Sepulcher ).

After an analysis of Hadrian's measures in Iudaea, Christopher Weikert comes to the conclusion that the capitol of the newly founded Aelia Capitolina is to be found in the area of ​​the forum of the new city: “The choice of the location of the capitol results in a targeted and culturally combative damnatio memoriae of the Jewish god not because of that. ”The Temple Mount with its ruins was said to have been on the sidelines, but according to archaeological findings the bridge at Wilson Arch was used by traffic in Hadrianic times. An expansion of the city may have been planned, which would also have included the temple grounds, but which then stagnated because of the Bar Kochba uprising .

Under Emperor Constantine and his successors, the temple grounds, with their still striking ruins, were deliberately left overgrown.

Emperor Julian planned to rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem in AD 362. In a first step, the ruins were largely cleared. On May 27, 363, an earthquake witnessed by several authors took place and the construction site was damaged. Julian then postponed the new building in favor of the Persian campaign, so that no further construction work was carried out.

The Islamic Dome of the Rock has stood on the temple site since 691, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque since 705/715 .

Thesis by Tuvia Sagiv

Tuvia Sagiv's theory: today's Temple Mount development (black), Jupiter's temple of Baalbek (blue) as an architectural comparison object to the Hadrian temple, Herodian temple (red) in a deeper stratum

The Tel Aviv architect and amateur archaeologist Tuvia Sagiv advocates a theory about the development of the temple area, which was taken up because of its political implications during the Oslo peace process ( Camp David II ); According to the negotiators, it was brought up by the US mediators as a “politically convenient archaeological-architectural explanation”.

Sagiv assumes that the large plateau and its surrounding walls do not go back to Herod, but to the Jupiter temple of Emperor Hadrian, a building whose style and dimensions he compares with the Jupiter temple in Baalbek . So Sagiv not only assumes a temple of Jupiter on the Temple Mount; he gives this temple maximum dimensions, so that the ruins of the Jewish temple can be embedded in the heaped-up hadrianic temple platform. The Islamic sanctuaries were then built on the ruins of this pagan temple, while the Herodian temple was about sixteen meters below the current ground level, and also not directly under the Dome of the Rock, as Sagiv suspects based on infrared images: these showed in the area between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque have four distinct underground structures. According to Sagiv's theory, the Holy of Holies of the Second Temple was located below today's Al Kas Fountain.

As early as 1995, Sagiv presented his theory to Ariel Sharon , who was an opposition member of the Knesset at the time. The US government learned of these plans through Sharon. Bill Clinton is said to have seen a solution to the particularly complex Temple Mount problem in the fact that archaeological finds of the Jewish temple in a stratum under today's Muslim buildings (as they were to be expected according to Sagiv's theory) would make a horizontally layered sequence of different sovereignties acceptable:

Consideration was given to transferring sovereignty over the Haram esch-Sharif and the buildings there to the Palestinians , while a portal to be built on the western wall (wailing wall) should provide access to the underground ruins of the Herodian Temple, which is located on found this level; this archaeological zone should be under Israeli sovereignty. A 150 cm deep buffer zone under UN sovereignty was planned below the current paving of the Haram; it should separate the Palestinian and Israeli stratum. The proposal of stratified sovereignties circulated under the name "Arkansas Big Mac"; he was completely rejected by the Palestinian side.

Sanctity of the temple grounds

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel prohibits Jews from visiting the entire Temple Mount (Har haBajit) .
Jewish visitors on their way to Temple Square

Already in the temple scroll of Qumran and in the Mishnah (Kelim I) a program of graduated holiness is unfolded. Corresponding ritual purity regulations apply in the various areas:

  1. Holy of Holies. It is not known exactly where the Holy of Holies was located. Some suggest that it was built over the exposed rock that is in the center of the Dome of the Rock.
  2. Temple House (Hechal)
  3. Burnt offering altar area, forecourt of the priests
  4. Men's forecourt
  5. Women's atrium
  6. Temple Mount (Har haBajit)
  7. City of Jerusalem
  8. Surroundings of Jerusalem
  9. Fortified Cities of the Holy Land
  10. Holy Land.

Even after the temple was destroyed, these degrees of holiness are important to religious Jews. It follows that entry taboos for the Temple Mount are observed.

Places of categories 1 to 5 may not be entered by people who are in a state of dead impurity. Soon after the destruction of the temple, the purification ritual to remedy this condition could no longer be performed.

The large outer courtyard of the Herodian Temple served as a forum for the entire city population in antiquity and was allowed to be entered up to a balustrade ( Soreg ) around the inner temple areas (category 1 to 5) even in the state of dead impurity. From this, rabbinical authorities such as Moshe Feinstein deduce that the Temple Mount (Category 6) can now be visited by Jews after they have been cleansed of other forms of uncleanliness in a mikvah . Although the chief rabbinate has banned visits to the entire Temple Mount since 1967, a circular route that stays outside the presumed course of the ancient balustrade is being followed by an increasing number of religious Jews (an increase of 75 percent in 2017 compared to 2016). These include groups of Haredim . The circular route is particularly popular among religious Zionists .





Web links

Commons : Jerusalem Temple  - Collection of Images, Videos and Audio Files

References and comments

  1. ^ Simon Goldhill: The Temple of Jerusalem . S. 4 .
  2. Helmut Utzschneider: The sanctuary and the law . S. 226 .
  3. Julius Wellhausen: Prolegomena for the history of Israel . 5th edition. Berlin 1899, p. 37 .
  4. Jens Kamlah: Building a house for God . S. 35 .
  5. Helmut Utzschneider: The sanctuary and the law . S. 273 .
  6. Antje Labahn: Chronicle / Chronicle books. In: Retrieved August 28, 2018 .
  7. ^ Antonius HJ Gunneweg: History of Israel . S. 93 .
  8. Eckart Otto: The ancient Jerusalem: Archeology and history . CH Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-56881-7 , p. 54-55 .
  9. Martin Noth: The world of the Old Testament . 2nd Edition. Töpelmann, Berlin 1953, p. 119 .
  10. Uta Zwingenberger: Iron Age I. Compiled, February 2007 [1]
  11. ^ A b Israel Finkelstein, Neil A. Silberman: David and Solomon . S. 154 .
  12. ^ Israel Finkelstein, Neil A. Silberman: David and Solomon . S. 154-155 .
  13. ^ Clifford Mark McCormick: Palace and Temple: A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2002, p. 109 .
  14. Othmar Keel, Ernst Axel Knauf, Thomas Staubli: Salomons Tempel . S. 26 .
  15. a b Wolfgang Zwickel: The world of the Old and New Testaments . S. 76 .
  16. Helmut Utzschneider: The sanctuary and the law . S. 275 .
  17. a b Dieter Vieweger: When stones speak . S. 262 .
  18. Wolfgang Zwickel: The world of the old and the new testament . S. 79-80 .
  19. Jens Kamlah: Building a house for God . S. 36 .
  20. Max Küchler: Jerusalem . S. 129 .
  21. Wolfgang Zwickel: The world of the old and the new testament . S. 81 .
  22. Wolfgang Zwickel: The world of the old and the new testament . S. 76 .
  23. a b Dieter Vieweger: When stones speak . S. 263 .
  24. Jens Kamlah: Building a house for God . S. 37 .
  25. See the Ataruz Project online research project
  26. Jens Kamlah: Building a house for God . S. 38-39 .
  27. Jens Kamlah: Building a house for God . S. 40 .
  28. ^ Rainer Albertz: The Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple 587 BC Chr. In: Johannes Hahn (Hrsg.): Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple: Events - Perception - Coping . S. 37-38 .
  29. Thomas Bänzinger: Temple implements as a touchstone for true and false prophecy: The mention of the temple implements in Ezra 1, 7-11 in the light of the Book of Jeremiah . In: Jacob Thiessen, Harald Seubert (ed.): The royal rule of Yahweh . LIT Verlag, Münster 2015, p. 113-125 .
  30. Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman: David and Solomon . S. 96 .
  31. Tobias Hürter: Tangible things for faith. In: Zeit Online. January 23, 2003, accessed August 15, 2018 .
  32. Old Hebrew inscription with reference to Solomon's temple probably not authentic. In: January 24, 2003, accessed August 15, 2018 .
  33. Report: Jehoash Tablet Is a fake. In: Haaretz online. June 10, 2003, accessed August 15, 2018 .
  34. Othmar Keel: Jerusalem and the one God: A history of religion . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2014, p. 101 .
  35. Flavius ​​Josephus, Contra Apionem I, 22. For the conversion of cubits and feet, the Roman measurements were used.
  36. a b Johann Maier: Between the wills . S. 149 (K. Bringmann, Hellenistic Reform and Persecution of Religions in Judea (1983), dates the events of the Maccabees a year earlier).
  37. ^ Antonius HJ Gunneweg: History of Israel . S. 163 .
  38. Herbert Niehr: Ba ' as ̆ amem: studies on the origin, history and history of reception of a Phoenician god . Peeters, 2003, p. 200 .
  39. Herbert Niehr: Ba ' as ̆ amem . S. 201 .
  40. Othmar Keel: Jerusalem and the one God: A history of religion . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2014, p. 111 . Gideon Hartman, Guy Bar-Oz, Ram Bouchnick, Ronny Reich: The pilgrimage economy of Early Roman Jerusalem (1st century BCEe70 CE) reconstructed from the d15N and d13C values ​​of goat and sheep remains. In: Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 4369–4376 [2]
  41. ^ A b Antonius HJ Gunneweg: History of Israel . S. 165 .
  42. a b Katharina Galor: To the glory of God and the king . S. 59 .
  43. ^ Ehud Netzer: Architecture of Herod . S. 143 .
  44. Katharina Galor: To the glory of God and the king . S. 60-61 .
  45. ^ Ehud Netzer: Architecture of Herod . S. 177 .
  46. Max Küchler: Jerusalem . S. 151 .
  47. Johann Maier: Between the wills . S. 166 .
  48. Johann Maier: Between the wills . S. 184-185 .
  49. ^ Antonius HJ Gunneweg: History of Israel . S. 190 .
  50. ^ Simon Goldhill: The Temple of Jerusalem . S. 17 .
  51. Christopher Weikert: From Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina . S. 283 .
  52. Christopher Weikert: From Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina . S. 284 .
  53. Max Küchler: Jerusalem . S. 144 .
  54. ^ Simon Goldhill: The Temple of Jerusalem . S. 10-11 .
  55. Max Küchler: Jerusalem . S. 145 .
  56. Eyal Weizman: Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation . S. 54 .
  57. ^ A b c Gershom Gorenberg: The End of Days . S. 74 .
  58. Eyal Weizman: Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation . S. 55 (The zone under Palestinian autonomy would have been limited to the development of the Haram and could have been reached by a bridge, surrounded on all sides by areas under Israeli sovereignty: over the airspace, the underground structures and the surrounding urban development.).
  59. Johann Maier: Between the wills . S. 226-227 .
  60. Cf. Meik Gerhards: Once again: Heiliger Fels und Tempel. In: , Rostock 2013. The article discusses possibilities of connecting the rock with the temple buildings of biblical times and votes for the location of the holy of holies above the rock.
  61. Alexander Dubrau: Para aduma. In: January 2019, accessed August 15, 2019 .
  62. HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt'l on the Permissibilty of Jews Ascending the Temple Mount. In: Retrieved on August 16, 2018 .
  63. ^ Nir Hasson: 75 Percent Rise in Religious Jews Visiting Temple Mount in 2017. In: January 2, 2018, accessed August 16, 2018 .
  64. ^ Nir Hasson: Number of Jews Visiting the Temple Mount Rising Fast, and So Is the Controversy. In: July 6, 2018, accessed on August 16, 2018 .

Coordinates: 31 ° 46 ′ 39.5 ″  N , 35 ° 14 ′ 7.7 ″  E