SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: Based on the textual evidence, and geography the Western wall has nothing to do with the Western Wal

https://x.com/mazzenilsson/status/2029862229449805918

Mats Nilsson

I have dug into this since the first time I went to the Western Wall back in 2004. Based on the textual evidence, and geography the Western wall has nothing to do with the Western Wall. The Israeli could build the temple today, because that area is almost cleared already. Bare with me on this one; the (un)Holy Temple was being located not on the traditional site of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif where the Dome of the Rock now stands, but rather over the Gihon Spring, approximately 600 meters to the south in the City of David. This argument relies on a re-examination of historical texts, archaeological understanding and basic simple topographical logic. The argument rests on the absolute necessity of a permanent, abundant water source for the daily functioning of a Jewish Temple, as described in biblical and historical accounts. The alternative more southerly site explicitly states its core thesis: that the Temples "were indeed located over the Gihon Spring." The logical conclusion. The spring is the only perennial water source in the immediate vicinity of ancient Jerusalem. For a Temple complex that operated daily with rituals involving copious amounts of water for cleansing sacrifices, priestly ablutions, and washing away blood from the altar, a reliable water supply was non-negotiable. The traditional Temple Mount site has no natural spring, nor id it have one. While water could be cisterns or aqueducts, the Temple's design and function would necessitate being built directly atop or immediately adjacent a primary water source, like a medieval crusader castle needed to be built around its well centuries later. Placing the Temple over the spring would have been the most practical and secure engineering solution, ensuring a protected water supply that could not be cut off by enemies. The site's emphasis on the Gihon Spring suggests that topographical and functional practicalities have been overlooked and lost in favor of later tradition. It is easy for mainstream history and archaeology to forget or dismiss a more accurate location. But just read, read what is found in scripture and in the writings of contemporary historians like Josephus. These texts describe the Temple as being within the original City of David, which archaeological consensus even today places on the southeastern ridge, where the Gihon Spring is located. The traditional Temple Mount, by contrast, is on a separate, higher ridge to the north. So later, post-70 AD Roman rebuilding of Aelia Capitolina by the Romans and subsequent Muslim construction led to a gradual shift in memory and tradition, eventually fixing the Temple's location to the more prominent, visually impressive platform we see today...and causing so much grief. The original site, intimately connected with the spring and the oldest part of the city, was gradually forgotten or misinterpreted. So just build and let the muslim keep their Dome...problem solved.

9:10 PM · Mar 6, 2026