Thanks Marilyn,I'm trying to visualize the Tower of Antonia being at this location, and if that were the case wouldn't that mean Herod's massive Temple Platform would need to be almost 100 feet lower than we see it today; that is, lower than the rock under the dome we see today. In reading Josephus' description it leaves up to debate the possibility that from a rock foundation large smooth stones were built up amounting to 50 cubits in overall height. If the rock outcropping under the Dome we see today, which is not that wide or long (58'x44'), were another 91.5 feet taller it would have looked like a pole sticking out of the ground. I guess the biggest problem I have with the rock under the dome being the location of the Antonia is it's central position on the Temple Mount platform, and the unlikely scenario that after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, somebody found it necessary to remove almost a hundred feet of solid rock mountain leaving a stub of rock we see under the Dome today; and this for no recorded or apparent reason. You said:"Fort Antonia occupied the northern half of the Temple Mount, and the Temple with its courts occupied the southern half."Do you think the Fortress of Antonia was that large? Thanks Marilyn for your thoughtful reply. YBIC Oliver Thomas