I have many friends who find the New York Times’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be “anti-Israel.” By this, I think that they mean that given a (surprisingly large) number of possible narratives through which to present a news story, the Times often picks one that lies somewhere within the Palestinian spectrum. I never really bought this argument. The Times to me reads somewhat to the right of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. While the Times maintains a fairly consistent bias, that bias would fit well within the current Israeli spectrum, and not even all that close to the left edge. So I have not always agreed with the coverage, but it has rarely riled me. Today’s article by Rick Gladstone, though, Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place, was so misleading and confused that it really got my goat.
The article claims that there is no definitive evidence that the two ancient Jewish temples stood on the present day Temple Mount. The article strongly implies that this remains a live historical controversy. The problem with posing the issue that way is that it confuses several distinct historical questions. Once those questions are teased apart, it is clear that there is actually very little disagreement among professional historians about most of them. These questions are:
- Did a Jewish temple stand on the present day Temple Mount? Yes. This is as historically certain a fact as one can get in the study of ancient history. The Temple Mount was built by Herod beginning at the end of the first century BCE – the Western Wall is the western retaining wall of that reshaping of the natural hill – and on top of it were a number of structures that belonged to the Jewish temple. These included courtyards, altars, and the Holy of Holies. Now it is true (and has long been recognized even in Jewish law) that we do not know precisely where on the Temple Mount those structures stood, but there is no question that they stood there.
- Prior to Herod’s renovation of the temple, did it stand at this site? Almost certainly. I would give it a 98% possibility. The second temple was built around 520 BCE and underwent a few renovations before Herod gave it a major overhaul. If Herod moved the site of the temple we would know, both from the extensive archaeological excavations conducted all around the temple as well from literary sources. People notice stuff like that.
- Was the second temple built on the same site as the first? Here there is scholarly uncertainty. The first temple was destroyed in 586 BCE along with the entire city of Jerusalem. When Jews returned from Babylonia to rebuild the temple, were they careful to find the site of the old structure, clear the rubble, and build it on the same exact spot? It seems likely, but this we really don’t know. The question is further complicated by the biblical record, in which God never tells Solomon precisely where in Jerusalem he is to build a temple. It is possible that the precise spot did not matter very much to the Israelites at this time. If the first temple did not stand within the confines of the present Temple Mount, though, it would have been within a couple of hundred meters.
The historical issues are thus both more complex and far more interesting than Gladstone implies. But this article is not really about history, it’s about politics. For some Jews and Muslims, this history really matters: it stakes claims to this plot of land. Yet to my mind ancient history can never add clarity or provide a solution to the very real and disturbing conflict presently being played out. It is just too great a burden for history to bear. Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Christians, and Muslims (overlapping groups that are themselves quite internally diverse) all have legitimate claims and grievances. To admit the simple historical truth that there was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount in no way lessens Palestinian claims or grievances or supports Israeli claims to sovereignty. Denying it equally serves no useful purpose. By encouraging a broad readership to focus on the ancient history, and by distorting history in order to promote specific claims, stories like this bring us all only further away from peace.
Thank you for this important clarification.
Louis Lipsky
Jerusalem
Perhaps the NYT should also discuss the Muslim claim to the Temple Mount. They say it is the place from where Muhammad ascended to heaven, that is, if you believe that anyone has ascended directly to heaven. Except, the Koran doesn’t name the Temple Mount as the place from which he ascended. It doesn’t even mention Jerusalem at all. The Koran only says that Muhammad ascended from “the far away place”. If there’s any doubt to be cast, there is plenty to be cast on the Muslim narrative.
The editorial line of Haaretz fits to the ~5% most radical leftists among the Jews in Israel (voters of Meretz and Hadash).
in 1925, the Waqf wrote: the site’s identity with Solomon’s Temple is “beyond dispute”. http://bit.ly/1OpEo9O
The story of mohammed assending to heaven is a direct, bad copy, of the story of Elijah the prophets assension… and it is entirely untrue.
Mohammed died a miserable death- which he and his biographers blamed on a women jewish who poisoned him. The story reeks so badly of what is 1400 yrs of ‘muslim’ thinking. You see, Mohammed had slaughtered the woman’s husband, and tortured an elder for the money hidden which of course he was prone to do: torture and slaughter. The story that the jewish lady poisoned him of course is another one: he died 3 yrs after she supposedly poisoned him. He poisoned the arab world and this is what he left the world with:
‘A’isha and Abdullah reported: As the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was about to breathe his last, he drew his sheet upon his face and when he felt uneasy, he uncovered his face and said in that very state: Let there be curse upon the Jews and the Christians that they have taken the graves of their apostles as places of worship. He in fact warned (his men) against what they (the Jews and the Christians) did.” — Sahih Muslim 1082
“Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle in his fatal illness said, ‘Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians, for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets.’ And if that had not been the case, then the Prophet’s grave would have been made prominent before the people. So (the Prophet ) was afraid, or the people were afraid that his grave might be taken as a place for worship.” — Sahih Bukhari 2.23.472
According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad died on June 8, 632, after once again cursing the Jews and Christians.
As for the historical reliability of these traditions, there are questions, But the Muslim contempt and hatred for Jews and Christians remains.
To this day, there is no evidence or hard proof that there was such thing “Temple Mount”. The name “Temple Mount” was proven to be for another area. I’m astonished of the number of people here who based their hate on emotions. You need to have a bias visit to Israel “Palestine originally” and ask any anthropologist, archaeologist or theologians from the Hebrew University. They will all confirm that to this day and after over 60 years of searching and digging, nothing has been found to support the claims of the existence of the Temple mount. Uri Gabay, a well respected JEWISH archaeologist was denied entry to all excavated search sites on “Temple Mount” because he was doing a research on the truth about the existence of any Jewish temple on “Temple Mount”. No wonder why the New York Times want to clarify where they stand, after publishing multiple articles in the past about “Temple Mount”. Way to go New York Time. A true leader in journalism.
The Time article did nothing to clarify. All it did was kick up some obfuscating dust. The article had nothing to do with real history. it was unabashedly politically driven. The author (I refuse to use the word ‘journalist’ ) use semantic slight-of-hand to distort history and violated the basic ethic of journalistic objectivity. Moreover, it wasn’t even a particularly good back story). True journalists have been fired for less.
NYT – made a massive correction:
“An earlier version of this article misstated the question that many books and scholarly treatises have never definitively answered concerning the two ancient Jewish temples. The question is where precisely on the 37-acre Temple Mount site the temples had once stood, not whether the temples had ever existed there.”