Since the previous post I made on the topic of Joseph Patrich’s Temple Location theory, I have been in contact with him to clarify that I do not agree with his position. He replied with the following and has graciously allowed me to post it here:
Sorry Leen, I was not aware that people will give such interpretation; I just wanted to credit you as the artist. This and only this. In the press released it was said: “Drawing (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).” In Hebrew it says: Drawn by Leen Ritmeyer following Prof. Patrich’s instructions.” The sole legitimacy I am looking for is from my own arguments, based on the archaeological data and the Rabbinic sources. From now on I’ll refrain from this. I know your ideas are entirely different than mine. Sorry it caused you embarrassment.
I hope that posting this helps to clarify that even though as a friend I helped him with the drawings, I do not agree with his position.
One thought on “Patrich’s Response”
Hi Leen, I saw your comment on ScientificBlogging.com. If you have articles on this subject you would like to post, please let us know and we will put them up there, with your permission.
Or, if you write on archeaology frequently and would like to have a broader audience than a solo blog, you could get a column over there of your own. Dr. Patrich’s findings were part of a news release we received and they looked and interesting and you were credited for the picture.