TEMPLE MOUNT WATCH: Ed Morrisey of the Captain's Quarters has an interesting story which reports that one Michael Sanders, who has an idiosyncratic theory about the location of the First Temple (that it was south of the Temple Mount in the City of David on the Gihon Spring rather than on the Temple Mount itself), e-mailed Newsweek a "Background Only" message to the effect that prominent Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin thinks that the Jerusalem of the Solomonic period did not extend as far north as the Temple Mount, and therefore he implicitly supports Sanders's idea. Despite the clear "Background Only" subject header, a Newsweek representative e-mailed Professor Usshiskin about it and mentioned Michael Sanders as the source.

Three comments:

1. Captain Ed has a reputation for reliability and since he says that he verified the essentials of the story with Newsweek, I take it to be accurate.

2. If so, I would be cautious about telling Newsweek anything I didn't want my name attached to in public. But read also the comments to Captain Ed's post, some of which defend Newsweek and give advice on how such things should be approached. Glenn Reynolds also has advice.

3. Regarding the theory itself, I am not an archaeologist and will defer to any professional archaeologists specializing in Israel who want to comment. Evidently the claim is that Professor Ussishkin thinks something about the bounds of tenth-century BCE Jerusalem, not anything in particular about Sanders's theory about the Temple. Regarding the latter, I have to say I have a hard time imagining that a significant piece of monumental architecture like a Solomonic temple stood on the spot indicated and no one has noticed any trace of it since. And I'm not impressed with Sander's website. He gives no indication that he has any specialist training in archaeology or the history of Israel and his theory keeps some extremely wild company on the site (speculations about the locations of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Garden of Eden, and the Ark of the Covenant -- things that are not of great concern to real archaeologists, to put it mildly). I am not impressed by his critical faculties, nor am I willing to take his word for what Professor Ussishkin thinks or the implications thereof. Too bad Captain Ed doesn't report on any reply by Ussishkin to Juliet Chung. (She is perhaps taking Sanders a little too literally about Ussishkin supporting Sanders's theory. Any support seems to be indirect at best.)

I haven't seen the Biblical Archaeology Review article Sanders alludes to in his e-mail. Can someone tell me if Ussishkin in fact say this about the boundaries of Solomonic Jerusalem and, if so, whether he discuss the implications for Solomon's Temple?

NOTE (same day): I've fiddled some with this post since it was published to make sure I'm understanding and presenting the issues correctly.

(Heads up, Michael Safrin.)