Editing Temple Mount (section)

===Temple Mount===
The term ''Har haBayīt'' – commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English – was first used in the books of [[Book of Micah|Micah]] (4:1) and [[Book of Jeremiah|Jeremiah]] (26:18), literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". The abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the [[Hebrew Bible]]{{sfn|Eliav|2008|p=50-51|ps=: "The pair of words ''Temple Mount'' also debuted in the works of the prophets. The ''copyright'' for this name is reserved to the prophet Micah, who incorporated it into his famous admonitory prophecy: ''Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest'' (Micah 3:12). It is quite doubtful, however, that the book of Micah preserved a concrete name that was actually used in the day-to-day lexicon of the prophet's generation. A close-reading of this passage shows that the phrase ''Mountain of the House'' is a literary variation of a longer term, the ''mountain of the House of the Lord'' (three words in Hebrew), which appears in verse 4:1. The author places the complete term in the middle and ''plays'' with its constituent parts (both pieces come out to two words in Hebrew) in the previous and subsequent verses (3:12; 4:2). In verse 4:1 the name Lord is deleted, leaving the term ''Mount of the House,'' or Temple Mount. This, then, is not a case of terms taken from the vocabulary of daily life but rather variations characteristic of the common literary diction used by the prophets. Furthermore, nearly one thousand years will pass from the alleged time of Micah until the specific term ''Temple Mount'' reappears in the Mishnah. In the interim, the term ''Temple Mount'' is not used in even one of the numerous existing sources, except in works quoting and using the entire phrase from Micah. This is conclusive evidence that the name ''Temple Mount'' was not used in earlier periods, even though the image of a mountain as a place for a temple was both known and probably, at least to some degree, widespread."}} or in the [[New Testament]].{{sfn|Eliav|2008|p=56|ps=: "Various passages of the New Testament use the images of the Temple and Jerusalem, whether to express the ''Heavenly Jerusalem'' or, on occasion, as a label for the actual community. And what of the Temple Mount? The word combination ''Temple'' and ''Mount'' is never to be found throughout the entire corpus of the New Testament."}} The term remained in use throughout the [[Second Temple period]], although the term “Mount Zion”, which today refers to the [[Mount Zion|eastern hill]] of ancient Jerusalem, was used more frequently. Both terms are in use in the [[Books of the Maccabees|Book of Maccabees]].<ref name=":20">{{Cite journal |last1=Patrich |first1=Joseph |last2=Edelcopp |first2=Marcos |date=2013 |title=Four stages in the evolution of the Temple Mount |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44092217 |journal=Revue Biblique (1946–) |volume=120 |issue=3 |pages=321–61 |issn=0035-0907 |jstor=44092217}}</ref> The term ''Har haBayīt'' is used throughout the [[Mishnah]] and later Talmudic texts.<ref name="Eliav 2003 pp. 49–113">{{cite journal |last=Eliav |first=Yaron Z. |year=2003 |title=The Temple Mount, the Rabbis, and the Poetics of Memory |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/23509245 |journal=Hebrew Union College Annual |publisher=Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion |volume=74 |pages=49–113 |issn=0360-9049 |jstor=23509245 |access-date=2022-06-30}}</ref>{{sfn|Eliav|2008|p=59b}}

The exact moment when the concept of the Mount as a topographical feature separate from the Temple or the city itself first came into existence is a matter of debate among scholars.<ref name=":20" /> According to Eliav, it was during the first century CE, after the destruction of the Second Temple.{{sfn|Eliav|2008|p=64|ps=: "Surprisingly, it was only in the aftermath of the Second Temple's destruction, when Jerusalem lost its own role as a political and religious center, that the Temple Mount gained prominence."}} Shahar and Shatzman reached different conclusions.<ref>Shahar, Y. (2008) "The concept of the Temple Mount in the Second Tem period," ''New Studies on Jerusalem,'' pp. 14, 203–10 (Hebrew with an English abstract on p. 4).</ref><ref>Shatzman, I. (2009). Appendix H, in: Yosef Ben Matityahu ([Titus] Flavius Josephus), ''History of the Jewish War Against the Romans'' (tr. L. Ulman), Jerusalem, pp. 646–59 (Heb).</ref> In the [[Books of Chronicles]], edited at the end of the [[Yehud (Persian province)|Persian period]], the mountain is already referred to as a distinct entity. In 2 Chronicles, [[Solomon's Temple]] was constructed on Mount [[Moriah]] (3:1), and [[Manasseh of Judah|Manasseh]]'s atonement for his sins is associated with the Mountain of the House of the Lord (33:15).<ref name=":15" /><ref>{{bibleverse|2 Chronicles|33:15|HE}}.</ref><ref name=":20" /> The conception of the Temple as being located on a holy mountain possessing special qualities is found repeatedly in Psalms, with the surrounding area being considered an integral part of the Temple itself.{{sfn|Eliav|2008|p=54|ps=: "The name ''Temple Mount'' appears but once throughout the multitude of available sources (in 1 Maccabees, which will be discussed below). Even there, it operates only as a literary construction, inspired by the biblical verse in Micah. This is a decisive finding, which proves that the term ''Temple Mount'' was not an integral part of the Second Temple period's lexicon...The most important question, however, is: how was this surrounding territory perceived by those living at the time, and how did it rank, if at all, in their world-view? It seems to me that throughout most of the period, the area did not possess any independent identity and was considered an integral part of the Temple itself. From a semantic standpoint, the various names given to the compound{{snd}} ''hatser ''(courtyard) in Hebrew, or the Greek ''peribolos'' and ''temenos''{{snd}}describe a space that surrounds another architectural element. The Temple, then, was perceived as an architectural complex containing different components. Just as the altar was part of the Temple structure, so were the surrounding elements{{snd}}courtyards and galleries. This is not to say that all these parts shared an equal status or degree of holiness. There was a definite, hierarchical system: the outer enclosure was not on a par with the inner court, and the inner court was not equivalent to the Holy of Holies. They were all grasped, however, as parts of a whole, which together formed the Temple. The sacredness of these territories is almost self-evident and is certainly no surprise. The expression "my holy courts" appears already in early, First Temple texts (for example, Isaiah 62:9), and it is only natural that the areas that form part of the Temple should possess some of its holiness. For example, the codes of purity were strictly enforced in these courts, in order to prevent the penetration of defilement into the inner sanctuary. The compounds surrounding the Temple, then, did not possess an independent character, and constituted an integral part of the Temple. People didn't refer to these areas as the "Temple Mount," and they were not even perceived in their consciousness as a mountain.}}

The governmental organization which administers the site, the [[Jerusalem Islamic Waqf]] (part of the Jordanian government), have stated that the name "The Temple Mount" is a "strange and alien name" and a "newly-created Judaization term".<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20201031114752/https://haramalaqsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/al-aqsa-definition-AR.pdf Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, The Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, The Administration Department of Awgaf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs, Jerusalem: Al-Aqsa Mosque]}}: "They all reassure their rejection of the attempts to Judaize al-Aqsa Mosque or any of its components by the Israeli Occupation Authorities, its various organs and the Jewish organizations, which interfering with its extreme Jewish organizations, which attempt interfering with its administration, hampering its reconstruction, and forcing strange and alien names [such as "The Temple Mount"] among other newly-created Judaization terms."</ref> In 2014, the [[Palestine Liberation Organization|Palestinian Liberation Organization]] (PLO) issued a press release urging journalists not to use the term "Temple Mount" when referring to the site.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Ynetnews |date=2014-11-06 |title=PLO urge journalists: Don't use term 'Temple Mount' |language=en |work=Ynetnews |url=https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4588544,00.html |access-date=2022-06-30}}</ref> In 2017, it was reported that Waqf officials harassed archeologists such as [[Gabriel Barkay]] and tour guides who used the term at the site.<ref name=":19">{{Cite web |last=Zion |first=Ilan Ben |date=2022-03-07 |title=Islamic guards try to boot guide for saying 'Temple Mount' on Temple Mount |url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-guards-try-to-boot-guide-for-saying-temple-mount-on-temple-mount/ |access-date=2022-06-30 |website=The Times of Israel |language=en-US}}</ref> According to Jan Turek and John Carman, in modern usage, the term Temple Mount can potentially imply support for Israeli control of the site.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Carman |first1=John |last2=Turek |first2=Jan |year=2016 |title=Looking Back and Forward |journal=Archaeologies |publisher=Springer Science and Business Media LLC |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=231–39 |doi=10.1007/s11759-017-9304-z |issn=1555-8622 |quote=In part, the issue is one of the technical interpretations of [[World Archaeological Congress|WAC Statutes]] which require WAC to adhere to UN and UNESCO principles of Human Rights and official languages: whether the latter extends to adoption of UNESCO names for things and places is less clear. But it goes further than this: the names applied to places are also indications of claims of ownership and stakeholder status. Since WAC is also bound to defy the forcible occupation of territory and the oppression of peoples, to recognise ‘Temple Mount’ as a legitimate title is potentially to recognise Israeli claims and therefore implicitly offer support for Israeli occupation of Jerusalem in defiance of international condemnation. |ref=none |s2cid=157370997|doi-access=free }}</ref>