Question ... (Peter) Jerusalem topography
Peter_Kirk at sil.org
Tue Dec 5 15:39:05 EST 2000
No, but you have at least conceded that certain books which describe a
"Solomon's temple" were written before (the generally accepted date of) the
building of Herod's temple.
500m x 300m would be big enough for a reasonably large city, wouldn't it?
How large are the sites of other cities of this period in the region?
From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 at mclink.it]
Sent: 05 December 2000 12:30
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: Question ... (Peter) Jerusalem topography
>PK: Don't forget that even on your dating the books of Kings were written
>before Herod's remodelling work on Jerusalem, and suggest that Solomon's
>temple and palace were built on this northern hill.
I never mentioned a "Solomon's temple". Was there one?
You know the height of the exposed rock on the platform. You know its
extend. You know the topography on each side. The terrain under the temple
mount has been understood for a lo-ong time. You end up with an area under
the current platform of less than 500m x 300m including the inclines -- an
area obviously wider than the old city, but also shorter.
More information about the b-hebrew