1

Supposed Site of Holy of Holies Solomon Never Knew

By

Robert Kerson 5/23/2011

Discovered by Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, a number of features beneath the Dome of the Rock

building on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, seems to confirm the designated place for the Ark

of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies of Solomons temple or was it? (Ritmeyer, The Quest,

2006)

The validity of his theory becomes questionable if any alternative explanation can explain his

observations. Here is an alternative explanation which can be verified by anyone redrawing over

a copy of Dr. Ritmeyers own diagrams the lines of these figures 1 through 5. (to obtain

Ritmeyer original drawing, see (Ritmeyer, The Quest, 2006) (or images for L. Ritmeyer on

google search)

(See attached Fig. 1 for the following) The Dome of the Rock building has an inner arcaded ring

of 12 pillars and 4 piers holding up a dome (where north is toward the top, and east is to the

right) the same size as the rotunda around the tomb of Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

to the west. This ring can be made of two squares at right angles to each other (shown as green

lines), and subdivided into 8 halved segments (shown as orange lines) a hidden octagon design

around the rock. There is a depression on the surface of the rock at the center point labeled (c ) in

the figure which is measured from the inner surface of all four piers (shown as dotted lines).

(See Fig. 2 for the following) Here you see a black dotted yellow line marking the natural

western high scarped edge of the rock under the dome of the building. A right angle at point (2)

runs eastward to near a corner of the northeast pier (1a) at the point labeled ( 1). This line is

shown in black with red hatchings. These two right angled lines create the perfect square labeled

(1), (2), (3), (4). The exact center of the square can be located on the rock surface and is labeled

(g ). The size of this square can have been created by the size of the circle from a natural

feature and a single pier on the circumference of the dome or by the size of the controlling

size of the rock and by no other reason. (This square was exactly 20 Cubits per side- the

dimensions of the Holy of Holies.)

See Fig. 3 ) shows one scaled green and one orange line seen in Fig. 1 superimposed on the

previous square. The distance of the orange line measured from the center of the square at point (

g) creates parallel lines of a larger square shown as dashed lines at points labeled (10), (11), (12)

and (13). This shows that the size of the preexisting octagonal building could have

determined the size of the rock and this statement cannot be disproved. (This square was

exactly 32 Cubits per side which was the length of each side of the altar or 20+6+6 Cubits per

side-- the dimensions of the Holy of Holies with side chambers on three sides) Also note the two

green lines intersecting in Fig. 1 and labeled in Fig. 3 as point ( 13) actually falls on the southern

2

edge of the rock, and again, by the intersection of three important lines labeled ( 19) falls on the

western edge of the rock, where at both edges the height of the rock is low.

Four further points to consider: point ( g) is directly north of point ( c) and notice how point (16)

on the north south line of the square is tangent to the hole in the rock shown as a small circle. If

you have read my article on the Temples location you will remember the temples axis line runs

from east -- west through point (17). Also notice that both the inner and the larger outer squares

are not centered on point ( c ) but on point ( g ) which puts the squares on the northern part of

the circle hence there is a large area vacant on the southern part of this circle. When we look at

how the area of the rock falls within the circle, it is apparent a large portion occupies the vacant

southern part, also the western and eastern parts, and only the northernmost part is cut off. In fact

the northern scarp is just south of the northern rim of the circle. This shows the actual laying out

of the rock seen today is in complete agreement with the mathematical geometry of the design1.

Fig. 4 shows point (g ) at the center of the square in more detail. Three lines running from three

corners of three piers to four corners of the inner square would have been able to create a

rectangle in the center of the square with dimensions similar to the dimensions of the Ark of the

Covenant. But with no Ark of the Covenant need have been here since these lines would have

needed only strings stretched from preexisting piers or stretched on the initial laying out of the

design before any pier was built. One corner of the rectangle was at the intersection of the red

line with the blue line as shown. Another corner of the rectangle was on the intersection of the

redgreen dashed line as shown. A slight discrepancy in the location of the intersection makes

this rectangle slightly wider than the rectangle shown and would explain an alternative

explanation for what is stated on page (Ritmeyer, The Quest, 2006) The third corner of the

rectangle was on the brown line as shown. Notice how this line, passes through point ( g) which

is also directly north of point (c ) which is shown as a green hatched line. This makes point ( g)

off center of the rectangleagain a better explanation then the one given by Dr. Ritmeyer. For

his explanation that the rectangle once held the Ark of the Covenant cannot explain why the

bottom of the rectangle has a shelf or lower depression on the western part which is larger on the

western end then on the higher eastern end. If the Ark was to have been placed in this rectangular

depression in the rock, the bottom had to be flat and not cut into a shelf. But if the rectangle was

designed according to Fig. 4, the shelf is easily explained. The forth side of the rectangle could

have been laid out from the side of one pillar as shown as a dotted brown line. The distance from

(1) to (2) was 20 Cubits and the distance from (1b) to (2) was slightly less being equal to the

length of the radius of the circle.

Fig. 5. shows another significant variation of string manipulations as all examples are on features

dating from the middle ages. Strings strung from the corners of three piers (shown as two red

lines) and laid across the surface of the rock are the basis of very important layouts. One red line

made the eastern edge of a square identical to the 20 Cubit square seen in Figs. 2 and 3 but

1 See note page. see Note 1 for more discussion..

3

whose northern edge touches the rectangle at (31) instead of the rectangle being at the center of

the square. The corners of this square are (29), (22), (25) and (34) where (22) is a point on the

western scarp of the rock (the dotted yellow line). Notice how at the northern edge of the rock

where there is a small northern scarp, two corners of a feature dating from the middle ages and

labeled (21) and (22) make two lines which touch two corners of the rectangle. One line at the

northern edge of the square makes a corner of the rectangle (31). The rock appears to have been

cut on the northern edge to made a nice fit under the dome by Knights Templars during the

middle ages. This is another example of surface modification during this time period. (Ritmeyer,

The Quest, 2006)

(See Fig. 6) The second red line running from (28) to (33) runs exactly where a tall feature on the

corner of the rock (23) is located which dates again from the middle ages. Next to this reliquary a

rectangular notch was cut out of the rock to make a Knights Templar Christian prayer space

during the middle ages. (see quest What is very significant is the fact that this cord has exactly

marked out part of the notch as if this was the method used to mark out that portion of rock to be

cut away during this time period.

Three possibilities exist on every feature seen here: either the feature is older than the laying out

of the octagonal building, or the feature dates from the time of the laying out of the octagonal

building, or the feature is younger then the laying out of the octagonal building. An example is

that the outer 32 Cubit square preserves the location of the western end of Solomons temple as

is Dr. Ritmeyers contention, and cannot be challenged if no other explanation can be shown but

because the size of this square is exactly the same length as a side of an octagon which does exist

around the circumference of the building, this size can be a feature or consequence of the laying

out of this octagonal building. The inner rectangle could have been laid out by stretching cords

over the piers and pillars in the finished structure, hence the rectangle would be then be of a very

late dating. And if the temple was not exactly here, then it had to be located some were else.

Let us, for the sake of discussion, consider the inner rectangle at point (g) in my figures the

center of the Holy of Holies and attempt to show the distances to each edge of the temples inner

court (the Azarah Court ) and then out to the larger 500 Cubit square. We need these common

assumptions: that the eastern edge of the 500 Cubit square is the eastern wall of the temple

mount, and that the northern edge of the square is the northern edge of the present inner

platform, and also that the smaller square within the building measures 20 Cubits per side as

stated in the bible for the size of Holy of Holies. (We need not physically measure out to the

western and southern sides of the square since these can be found by simple subtraction from the

number 500. We also know that the 20 Cubit square can be enlarged by 6 Cubits on each side.)

We know dimensions from the old testament and from the Talmuds statements concerning

dimensions of the temple. Thus we know the Holy of Holies was 20 C square and the Azarah

Court was 187 C from east to west and 135 C from north to south etc. We can fit the center of

the Holy of Holies at point (g) and figure out all the other dimensions and locations. Thus point

(g) must be 67.5 C from the northern and southern edges of the Azarah Court, since this would

4

be the center line of the 135 C wide court. The surveyors would have needed only a measuring

cord utilizing the known distance of 20 Cubits (or 32 Cubits {6C+12C+6C= 32 C}) to find the

northern and eastern edges of the Azarah Court, then measuring beyond these edges to the outer

edges of the 500 Cubit square would give the distances from the edges of the Azarah Court to the

edges of the great 500 Cubit square. It would be a simple matter to take these measurements

during the middle ages when the Knights Templars had complete access to the building to pass

the cords through the four open doors of the octagonal building and onto the surrounding

platform. This helps bolster my theory this was done during this period of time and not during

Moslem access which would have put these measurements off limits. The distances from the

Azarah Court to the respective western and southern edges of the great square could have been

surveyed with a cord, but it would have been far easier to just subtract the respective northern

and eastern distances from 500 to find the correct distances. What they must have discovered

where these dimensions:

From northern edge of Azarah to northern edge of 500 Cubit square 115 Cubits

From eastern edge of Azarah to eastern edge of 500 Cubit square 213 Cubits

From southern edge of Azarah to southern edge of 500 Cubit square ---

500C- [115C+ 135C]= 250 Cubits where 135C is north- south width of Azarah

From western edge of Azarah to western edge of 500 Cubit Square

500 C [187C +213C] = 100 Cubits where 187C is east- west length of Azarah2

A number of lengths would have been easily divisible by the a 20 C long cord. These are the

lengths in question: 500C (where 500C/20C = 25 cord lengths) , 250C (where 250C/20C= 12.5

cord lengths) , 100C (where 100C/20C= 5 cord lengths).

These dimensions must have been hard to get, but the fact is someone did obtain them and they

were finally written down in the sixteen century by Tosefot Yom Tov-- a few centuries after the

middle ages ended. These dimensions are correct for the design centered at (g) which most

likely dates from work done during the middle ages but not from the actual Solomons temple.

Why was this ever done? There seems to be a connection between the building and Solomons

Temple as perceived by Knights Templars who believed the building was built upon the site.

This design must have been a very sacred inner mystery of the Knights. (There can be a hidden

Knights Templar cross hidden in the design as well. Can you find it? Hint: the hole in the rock

and the flat area near it are keys to drawing it.)

2 See note page. Note 2 for my distances from the Azarah to the edges of the 500 Cubit square.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

The above article shows how details found on the rock may postdate the octagonal building. But

this article also demonstrates the close connections of features found on the rock and the size and

shape of the octagon which means there are possibilities that an octagonal building dating from

after the destruction of Herods temple and utilizing details of Solomonic age, such as a

depression where the Ark was placed in the Holy of Holies, could have been used to design an

octagonal building. This would likely have been a structure built over the Jewish temple ruins by

The Emperor Hadrian, and then reemerging as first a wooden and then a stone octagonal building

after Moslems captured the site. Also, Moslems could have built a wooden then stone octagonal

building from details found on the rock. It is possible the size of this domb and the great Church

of the Holy Sepulchre dome are of the same size because, when the Church of the Holy

Sepulchre was built, the byzantine builders knew the dimensions and details of the ruined temple

rock site. Both explanations would allow the rock to have been the site of the Ark which

Solomon would have known. The problem is that since the above article is also valid, my

hypothesis that the details of the rock may be of a more resent date puts doubt that the details in

the rock are truly Solomonic.

I believe it is possible details on the rock may actually be pre- Solomonic and dated to the time

of King David as the site where the Ark was made ready before the temple was built. This is

fully discussed and illustrated in my paper on the Jewish Temple and need not be repeated here.

What this paper does emphasize is that details on the rock may not be Solomonic features.

12

Note page

1. The details of how this building may have been laid out can be very difficult to actually

describe. The inner circle i.e., the dome was the same size as the dome centered on the

tomb of Christ within the Church of the Holy Sepulcre which predates the Dome of the

Rock by many centuries. The same inner and outer squares seen here could also have

existed in the church but there is nothing to support the idea this space was known by the

architects of the Byzantine church.

It is possible Figure 3 of this article was worked out before figure 2, but it is impossible

for me to tell which came first. Which came first: the larger or the smaller square?

The rock may have been larger at one time, but cut to fit under the dome during the middle

ages which would date figure 3 as being created during the middle ages.

Bibliography (n.d.).

(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (pp. 246-253). Jerusalem: The Lamb Foundation.

(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (pp. 268-273). Jerusalem: The Lamb Foundation.

(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (p. 266). Jerusalem: The lamb foundation.

(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (pp. 260-261). Jerusalem: The Lamb foundation.

(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (p. 378). Jerusalem: The Lamb Foundation.