The recent announcement by Prof. Joseph Patrich of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology locating the site of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini south of the modern "Dome of the Rock" mosque is contradicted by Tana"kh (b^ә-Midbar 19.4), as pointed out by physicist Dr. Asher Kaufman (The Jerusalem Post International Edition, 1980.04.06 – 02.12, p. 16-17).

This passage seemed to mean that the priest standing on the Mount of Olives was facing the main entrance to the Temple sanctuary in the inner court.

This notion was reinforced by Middot in its description of the Temple compound's walls. 'All the walls were high except the eastern wall, so that the priest who burnt the red heifer might, while standing on the Mount of Olives, by directing his gaze carefully, see the entrance of the Heikhâl at the time of the sprinkling of the blood.'

Drawing (Temple1) shows Prof. Patrich's description of the location of the Temple compound (the rectangle defined by a solid line in the center of the drawing). (Drawings by Leen Ritmeyer). Red line demonstrates line of sight from the crest plateau of Har ha-Zeitim through Sha·ar hâ-Rakhamim (blue dot).

Kaufman had been mulling over this detail when he read the passage from Y^әkhëzqeil [8.16] that [ërëv Shabât]… As soon as Shabât was over, he took out a map of Y^әrushâlayim and began tracing out east-west lines of sight from the top of the Mount of Olives to the Temple Mount about 800 meters distant. Kaufman presumed that the ceremony was conducted near the crest in order to permit the priest to look over the eastern Temple compound wall. (Although this wall was lower than the rest, it could not be too low because the Temple was also a walled fortress.)

The flat crest of the Mount of Olives for the most part was too northerly to permit an east-west line of sight to the Temple Mount: From the crest's southernmost end, however, Kaufman drew a line that reached the Temple Mount near the [Sha·ar hâ-Rakhamim – a key clue], about 95 meters from the center of the Dome of the Rock. There could be no east-west line of sight to the Dome o the Rock itself from the ridge crest.

Drawing a line of sight from the crest plateau of Har ha-Zeitim through Sha·ar hâ-Rakhamim rules out Prof. Patrich's proposed site.

Several archeologists have argued that Prof. Kaufmann's site, the present-day "Dome of the Tablets" (≅70 meters north of the gold-domed mosque), either would have located it in a fosse or left no room for the Antonia Fortress. It must be remembered that the Beit ha-Miqdâsh was also originally a fortress, the north wall of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon forming the northern wall of the ancient city, against invasion from the north. Thus, we can be certain that the north wall of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon crowned a scarp on its north side.

Line of sight from Har ha-Zeit•im′  begins (in photo) at yellow disk and proceeds through Sha′ •ar ha-Ra•kham•im′  to the ancient site of the Qo′ dësh ha-Qâ•dâsh•im′  containing the A•ron′  hâ-Eid•ut′ —the purple disk—entirely bypassing the mosque.

Further, Josephus described a significant separation, probably a valley or fosse, between the north wall of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon and the Antonia Fortress. As the photo below shows, the location of the Qodësh ha-Qâdâshim (follow the yellow east-west line west [upward left from Sha·ar ha-Rakhamim] to its end) is perfectly placed for the north wall of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon to be located at the top of the scarp to the north (long-since filled in, now the green strip of trees and park running along the north side). The red arrow identifies the "Sisters of Zion [Ecce Homo] Convent" that sits atop the Struthion pool, over which the Antonia Fortress was constructed, west of the Pool of Bethesda, just north of the Lion's Gate Rd.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly 4Q MMT, the Pseudepigrapha, and other early Judaic documents all corroborate pre-5^th century source documents concerning the "Oral Law" controversy in the 1^st-century Jewish community.

For details, see Asher S. Kaufman, Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood," Biblical Archeology Review, 1983.03, p. 40ff and related articles by Dr. Kaufman.

Prof. Elisha Qimron of Ben-Guryon University has demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT that the traditional view, that the Tzedoqim rejected the Oral Law, is a misunderstanding of 1^st century discussions. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, which is correcting modern misperceptions on a wide scale — and revolutionizing modern perceptions of 1^st-century Judaism — reveals that only the oral transmission of halakhah was rejected by the Tzedoqim.

Halakhah was accepted by all of the sects of legitimate Judaism recognized by the unquestioned authority of legitimate Judaism on earth — the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.

The dispute, instead, revolved around whether Oral Law should be codified (written) or remain transmitted exclusively orally.

The Tzedoqim argued, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT documents, that oral transmission must be "rejected" in favor of codification of (no-longer-to-be-Oral) 'Oral Law' (in their own 'Book of Decrees'). I can think of nothing more ludicrous than supposing that the Tzedoqim in the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh and Beit-Din ha-Jadol handed down their own decisions with one hand while, at the same time with the other hand, rejecting their own decisions!!! It really didn't require 4Q MMT or a rocket scientist to expose such flawed thinking.

See Birkat ha-Minim

Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) shows, based on Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, that no element of legitimate 1^st century Judaism could possibly have compromised even the minutest point of halakhah without being immediately and unanimously expelled from the Jewish community by all but the most apostate Hellenists. Such an alien and unimaginable suggestion would have been an anathema even to the extreme apostate Tzedoqim! Yet, it was only the apostate and heretical proto-Christian sects like the Evyonim were excluded from the Jewish community by the Beit Din ha-Gadol definition of legitimate Judaism!!!

The N^әtzarim continued to live in harmony in the Jewish community, proving that they continued unchanged in non-selective observance of Torah.

Furthermore, as Eusebius most pointedly recorded, the N^әtzarim remained locked in mortal opposition to Christianity into the 4^th century — when the Church finally extirpated the N^әtzarim specifically because they would not compromise and accept selective observance (i.e., even partial rejection) of Torah!!! Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT absolutely proves that observance of the entirety of halakhah as an inherent part of Torah-observance was the sine qua non of legitimate Judaism throughout the 1^st Jewish century. It still is.

The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM):

"I didn't come to subtract from the Torâh of Moshëh or the Neviim, nor to add onto the Torah of Moshëh did I come. Because, rather, I came to [bring about the] complete [i.e., non-selective] observance of them in truth.

Should the heavens and ha-Aretz exchange places, still, not even one י or one of the Halâkhâh of the Torah of Mosheh shall so much as exchange places; toward the time when it becomes that they are all being performed -- i.e., non- selectively -- in full.

For whoever deletes one [point of] the Halâkhâh of these mitzwot from Torah, or shall teach others such, [by those in] the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted.' And whoever ratifies and teaches them shall be called ' Ribi' in the Realm of the heavens.

For I tell you that unless your tz^әdâqâh is over and above that of the [Hellenist-Roman Pseudo- Tzedoqim] Codifiers of halakhah, and of the Rabbinic- Perushim sect of Judaism, no way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens." (see NHM)

The N^әtzârim introductory book, Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) demonstrates from the source mss. of the NT, from the early Jewish and Church historians, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls (especially 4Q MMT), et al. that it's absolutely impossible that either Ribi Y^әhoshua or his original followers, the N^әtzarim, ever advocated the 2^nd to 4^th century antinomian (gentile Roman) Christian doctrine of selective observance.

Logically, selective (i.e. partial) observance equates to partial rejection of Torâh.

In short, we demonstrate that no legitimate transition from Ribi Yehoshua and his original N^әtzârim followers to Christianity is even possible! Ribi Yehoshua Ben-Yoseiph Ben-Dawid of Natzrat (corrupted to "Nazareth") not only supported the Perushim Ribis in opposing the pseudo-Tzedoqim effort to end the oral transmission of halakhah, he was himself a Perushim Ribi!!!

See NHM 23:1-3; documentation and details in the books Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)

The Tzedoqim rejected the tradition of oral transmission of halakhah, wishing to impose their written interpretation of Oral Law (their "Book of Decrees") instead.

Though controversy raged over whose interpretation of Oral Law was authoritative and how it should be transmitted, no sect in the 1^st-century Jewish community ever considered rejecting the body of Oral Law. Further information and documentation are found in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC).