Marilyn Sams

My experience on the alleged temple mount when I visited Jerusalem was a negative one and the reading I had done prior to traveling there indicated no one was sure of where the temple had actually been built on the mount. When I read Ernest L. Martin's book about the actual location of the temple in the City of David, I was convinced by his research and reasoning. However, I had a hard time reading his book and felt the information could be better organized and presented. I also wanted to read all his sources to make sure they were saying what he said they said. Along the way, I decided to write my own book and do additional research, especially in the area of archaeology, which had greatly expanded after Martin's death in the area of the Gihon Spring, which was enclosed by the temple.

For this book, I knew the entire basis of the scholar's location rested on the assumption that the City of David/Jerusalem on the southeastern hill had been expanded to include the large northerly expansion where the alleged Jerusalem temple mount now stands. I therefore spent the first five chapters setting forth the descriptions which showed there was no expansion. The next task was to set forth descriptions showing how the actual temple mount differed from what is currently called the temple mount. Thereafter, I set forth the descriptions showing how it does, however, match descriptions of Fort Antonia, the former Roman camp. Finally, I set forth the current archaeology for both the alleged temple mount and the City of David to show how it supports the City of David location.