Home (Netzarim Logo)
Beit ha-Miqdash, SE wall showing the 'Straight Joint,' Herodian addition to foundation of First Beit ha-Miqdash
Click to enlargeBeit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, south end of East Wall. Pâ•qid Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu ha-Tza•diq stands on the north (right) side of the vertical "Straight Joint," where Herod added (left of the "Straight Joint") to the original Wall of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon (right of the "Straight Joint"; see Biblical Archeology Review, 1987.05-06, p. 34-44) – far older than the Kotël. Photograph © 1995 Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu Bën-Dâ•wid.
Sukkah 01 (Hut, Booth or Exhibit #1)

Historical Perspective
Relative to the Nᵊtzâr•im

Authentic Teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shua &
Oral Law in First Century Judaism

The assertion by Prof. Joseph Patrich of the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology locating the site of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i south of the modern "Dome of the Rock" mosque is contradicted by Ta•na"kh (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 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 [Ta•lᵊmud, Ma•sëkët Mid•ot] 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 Hei•khâl at the time of the sprinkling of the blood.'

Patrich-Ritmeyer Drawing
Click to enlargeDrawing (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-Zeit•im through (blue dot).

Kaufman had been mulling over this detail when he read the passage from Yᵊkhëz•qeil [8.16] that [ërëv ]… As soon as was over, he took out a map of 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 [ – 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 of the Rock itself from the ridge crest.

Drawing a line of sight from the crest plateau of Har ha-Zeit•im through 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-Mi•qᵊdâsh was also originally a fortress, the north wall of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon 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-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon crowned a scarp on its north side.

Har ha-Bayit
Click to enlargeLine of sight from Har ha-Zeit•im begins (in photo) at yellow disk and proceeds through to the ancient site of the Qodësh 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-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon and the Antonia Fortress. As the photo below shows, the location of the (follow the yellow east-west line west [upward left from ] to its end) is perfectly placed for the north wall of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon 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.


Beit Miqdash ha-Rishon, Physical Evidence

Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon,
Physical Evidence: Legend (Plan refined from Biblical Archeology Review article (1983.03) by Dr. Asher S. Kaufman and drawing copyright 1980 by Dr. Asher S. Kaufman. Refinements © 2006 by Yirmeyahu Ben-David. All rights reserved.)

Diag. #1 – Muslim Arabs Remove
"First Temple" Foundation Stones
Beit ha-Miqdash ha-Rishon cubits
Click to enlargeDiag. #1 – Foundation Rock of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon (Biblical Archeology Review p. 48), before Muslim Arabs built over it in 1970 and, since then, destroyed and removed all traces of it with a bulldozer (Biblical Archeology Review pp. 54 & 60).

Diag. #1 – Rock mass, hi-lighted in green, formed part of the northwest corner of – also called – in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon.

The west face, shown in yellow, was cut at an angle of 6° south of an east-west axis, corresponding to the orientation of other features of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon.

The upper level of the rock is the actual surface level of . When the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i was built on this same site (oriented 9°, rather than only 6°, south of a west axis) reamed holes #1 & #2 and the well-cut niche helped to establish the length of the medium cubit used as a standard unit in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i.

The working of the rock mass to accommodate the masonry of the northwestern corner of the can be seen from a different angle (note the rock mass in hi-lighted in green again), circled in red (before, notice door hi-lighted in blue). Arab Muslims bulldozed this evidence and removed it (after, notice door hi-lighted in blue).

Diag. #13, ca. 1970 – Before & After: Muslim Arabs Remove
Remnant of "First Temple" Inner Court West Wall
Before Muslim Arab Destruction
Click to enlargeDiag. #8 – Rock ledge before Muslim Arabs destroyed it and replaced it.

Diag. #8 – Rock ledge (lower center of photo, two rows of stones at the bottom left of the door) built on the foundation of the Western Wall of – before) and after destruction and removal by Arab Muslims. This wall was later used to form part of the southwestern gateway complex leading to the of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i.

Diag. #10 – Cistern I, situated nearby or beneath , between the Hei•khâl and of the (p. 54)

Diag. #13 – Wall, exposed by Muslim trench in 1979, forming the foundation of the γεισιον (geision), the term used by Josephus to designate the parapet surrounding the in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon… which could not be fitted into the framework of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i, is indeed part of the foundation of the parapet that Josephus called the γεισιον (Biblical Archeology Review p. 56).


After Muslim Arab Destruction
Click to enlargeDiag. #8 – Rock ledge after Muslim Arabs destroyed it and replaced it.

Diag. #14 – ("Tank xxix") crypt supporting northeastern angle of the and part of the . An extract from the description of this feature discovered by Warren is particularly significant: "The Souterrain [crypt] has no appearance of having been constructed for a tank; there is not a sign of plaster about, … [it] was apparently built for the purpose of raising up the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon to a general level. (p. 56)

Diag. #15 – Remains of northern rock wall in the basement of the small domed house, marks southern Wall of (#16, tank xxiv; pp. 52 & Plan of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon, p. 55)

Diag. #18 – Wall remains bounding the , on the north side" (p. 58)

Other Muslim destruction or removal of physical archeological remnants include:


  • Ca. 1970 – Before & After: Muslim Arabs Remove
    Remnant of "First Temple" Inner Court North Wall

    31 meters north of where the Ark of the Covenant rested (today: Dome of the Tablets) in the Holy of Holies

    Woman standing on remnant of Beit ha-Miqdash ha-Rishon wall, before
    Click to enlargeBefore
    Woman standing on remnant of Beit ha-Miqdash ha-Rishon wall, after
    Click to enlargeAfter


  • Removal of "First Temple" Ashlars

    Remnants of ashlars, apparently about 23 meters south of today's "Northwest Stairway" in the diagram above.

    Before: Ashlars
    Click to enlargeBefore
    After: Ashlars Gone
    Click to enlargeAfter

Hebrew labels
  • (also called

  • , also called

  • (also called

Temple Drawing Patrich Ritmeyer
Red line indicates line of sight from Har ha-Zeit•im through to where Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon was located – not where the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i is wrongly drawn (and the Dome of the Rock now stands).
Khat-shepset's Temple
Click to enlargeKhât-shepset's Temple, built by ((Sen-en-mut Tut-) Moses (see The Mirrored Sphinxes Live-Link)

Prototype of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon architecture: Mortuary Temple of Par•oh Khât-shepset.

The similarities in architecture between the Temple built by Sen-en-mut Tut Moses for his lover, Queen Par•oh Khât-shepset, and the descriptions of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon (even the extraordinary similarities to the descriptions of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i!!!) are conspicuous and otherwise inexplicable.

For example, Par•oh Khât-shepset's Mortuary Temple first featured, as its central focal point, a Holy Place leading into a Holiest of Holy .

Moreover, what, in Par•oh Khât-shepset's past, motivated her successor-son (Tut Moses III) to do his best to erase his own mother from Egyptian history, chiseling away almost every record of her in the Karnak Temple Wall? What black mark in Egyptian history (as perceived by Egyptians, of course), if not the Yᵊtzi•âh, which dates from the same time (as dated by, inter alia, the tsunami produced by the Santorini eruption ca. B.C.E. 1467)?

We demonstrate, in The Mirrored Sphinxes Live-Link, that the Par•oh's daughter who found the Hebrew infant in the Nile (Shᵊm•ot 2.1-10) was, in all likelihood, the daughter of Tut Moses I (ruled from ca. B.C.E. 1528-1518). His 12-year-old daughter grew up to become Queen Par•oh Khât-shepset, sister-wife of Tut Moses II, who died young (and a bit mysteriously). She then became the lover of an otherwise unidentified member of the Pharoanic household (Sen-en-mut), and mother of Tut Moses III (the Par•oh of the Yᵊtzi•âh), who succeeded her.

Being adopted into the household of Par•oh Tut Moses, the Hebrew infant, who grew up as an Egyptian Prince, would have been known by his adopted Pharaonic family's name: Tut Moses!!! However, the Hebrews were forbidden to pronounce the name of a foreign god (viz., Tut). Consequently, they would have dropped Tut from Tut-Moses; calling him simply ""; thereby excluding the idolatrous Egyptian first name.

To forestall popular, but frivolous, objections, it isn't clear whether the Hebrews adopted the Hebrew name because it sounded similar to the Egyptian pronunciation (anglicized to "Moses") and whether the verb root – of uncertain origin (according to Klein's), developed from the Hebrew pronunciation of the Egyptian surname anglicized to "Moses"; rather than the reverse.

The references in Ta•na"kh to the city name "Rameses" (bᵊ-Reish•it 47.11; Shᵊm•ot 1.11; 12.37; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 33.3, 5) were clarifications of the name of the city at the time of the compilation of , which had earlier been known, at the time of the Yᵊtzi•âh, as Pi-Tom (corrupted to "Pithom"), and later renamed Pi-Rameses, near modern Qantir, in the Egyptian Delta (see The Mirrored Sphinxes Live-Link).

It seems inescapable that Moses' plans for the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon were passed down from generation to generation until it was finally built by Shᵊlomoh ha-Mëlëkh.



Beit ha-Miqdash ha-Sheini
Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i

The Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i was built on the site and general plan of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon. Therefore, the architecture of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh -Ri•shon is a midpoint of evolution between the two.

First Century Oral Law & (4Q) MMT

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


Batei Miqdash Overlay Diagram
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. Ël•i•shâ Qim•ron, Professor of Linguistics, Bën-Gu•rᵊyon University of the Nëgëv in Bᵊeir Shëva has demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT that the traditional view, that the Tzᵊdoq•im rejected the Oral Law, is a misunderstanding of 1st century discussions. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, which is correcting modern misperceptions on a wide scale — and revolutionizing modern perceptions of 1st-century Judaism — reveals that only the oral transmission of Oral Law was rejected by the Tzᵊdoq•im.

Oral Law was accepted by all of the sects of legitimate Judaism recognized by the unquestioned authority of legitimate Judaism on earth — the Beit Din -Jâ•dol.

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

The Tzᵊdoq•im 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 'Χειρογραφον τοις Δογμασιν'). I can think of nothing more ludicrous than supposing that the Tzᵊdoq•im in the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh and Beit Din -Jâ•dol 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.

Oral Law — First Century sine qua non

Bi•rᵊk•at ha-Min•im
Ëv•yon•im (Ebionites)

Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link (WAN) shows, based on Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, that no element of legitimate 1st century Judaism could possibly have compromised even the minutest point of Ha•lâkh•âh 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 most extreme apostate Tzᵊdoq•im! Yet, it was only the apostate and heretical proto-Christian sects like the Ëv•yon•im were excluded from the Jewish community by the Beit Din -Jâ•dol definition of legitimate Judaism!!!

The Nᵊtzâr•im continued to live in harmony in the Jewish community, proving that they continued unchanged in non-selective observance of .

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

, Oral Law & Hebrew Matthew:

Ribi Yᵊho•shua Commanded Non-Selective Observance
The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 5.17-20

"I didn't come to subtract from the Torâh of Mosh or the Neviim, nor to add onto the of Mosh 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 -Ârëtz exchange places, still, not even one or one A qeren, ozeil or pishta of the Ha•lâkh•âh of the 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 Ha•lâkh•âh of these mi•tzᵊw•ot from , 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 tzᵊdâqâh is over and above that of the [Hellenist-Roman Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im] Codifiers of Ha•lâkh•âh, and of the Rabbinic- Perushim sect of Judaism, no way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens." (see NHM)

Antinomian Gentile Christianity

Yael & Karen, Qumran Cave in background
Karen & Yael at Qumran Cave. Photograph © 1994 Yirmeyahu Ben-David.

The Nᵊtzârim introductory book, WAN Live-Link Technology 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 Yᵊhoshua or his original followers, the Nᵊtzarim, ever advocated the 2nd to 4th 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 Nᵊtzârim 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 Hellenist Tzedoqim effort to end the oral transmission of Ha•lâkh•âh, he was himself a Perushim Ribi!!!

See NHM 23:1-3; documentation and details in the books WAN Live-Link Technology and Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC)

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT Proves:
1st Century "Sadducees" Rejected Oral Transmission (Not Corpus) of Oral Law

The Tzᵊdoq•im rejected the tradition of oral transmission of of the Oral Law, wishing to impose their own, codified, interpretation of Oral Law – their "Χειρογραφον τοις Δογμασιν" – instead.

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT Proves:

Oral Law in 1st Century Judea:
Central To All 3 Major Sects

Though controversy raged over whose interpretation of Oral Law was authoritative and how it should be transmitted, no sect in the 1st-century Jewish community ever considered rejecting the body of Oral Law. Further information and documentation are found in WAN Live-Link Technology and ABNC Live-Link Technology.

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic