Why Is So Little Physical Evidence Left of the Temple?

Skeptics ask: if the Temple was as large as described, why does so little archaeological trace remain?

Q. How do we answer a difficult to explain question from sceptics such as “If the Temple in Jerusalem was so large then why is there so little to be found of it?” and so archaeologists simply claim that the Temple wasn’t as big as the Talmud claims it was based on the measurements mentioned. In addition some people reply saying “Well the Romans destroyed it all” but I disagree that the Romans could literally destroy almost all the walls of the Temple and that nothing is left standing and it would take them so long it wouldn’t be worth their time and effort. In all of Israel there are remains of ancient buildings but I see no remains of our Temple in Jerusalem, only the Kotel. Bottom line is how do we answer what happened physically to the Temple if it was so huge?

Firstly, the measurements of the Talmud are written in amot, (human forearm) and the size of the average person in those days was different (multiply that by hundreds of amot and it adds up to a significant difference). Secondly, go to the Davidson center and digs, for they are constantly, literally every week, finding new findings, as is the nature of archeology. In other words, all agree that we have some finds from the First Temple, but don’t yet have the entire picture. The rule that “what we HAVEN’T (yet!) seen doesn’t prove anything!” is especially true regarding archeology. Thirdly, in the olden days, building supplies were so much more difficult to make and buy, so that stones were constantly being moved, in every generation from their original place many, many times. Fourthly, there are many artifacts that are still standing or fell in their place. In fact, a simple visit to the Davidson center and Ir David, and a guided tour with one of the professionals of there, will answer all of your questions.