Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Temple
Subjects in this Topic:
a word used to designate a building dedicated to the worship of a deity. In this article we treat only of the series of edifices erected for that purpose at Jerusalem, and in doing so we present the reconstructions hitherto the latest and most approved, with strictures, however, upon their defects. SEE PALACE.
I. Names. — The usual and appropriate Heb. term for this structure is ïäֵéëָּì , heykâl, which properly denotes a royal residence, and hence the sacred name éַäֹåָä , Jehovah, is frequently added; occasionally it is also qualified by the epithet ÷ãֶùׁ , kâdesh, sanctuary, to designate its sacredness. Sometimes the simpler phrase éְäåָä áֵּéú , beyth yehovadh, house of Jehovah, is used; and in lieu of the latter other names of the Deity, especially àֵֹìäַé , elohim, God, are employed. The usual Greek word is íáüò , which, however, strictly denotes the central building or fane itself; while the more general term ἱåñüí included all the associated structures, i.e. the surrounding courts, etc. The above leading word äֵéáָּì is a participial noun from the root äָëִì , to hold or receive, and reminds us strongly of the Roman templum, from ôÝìåíïò , ôÝìíù , locus liberatus et effatus. When an augur had defined a space in which he intended to make his observations, he fixed his tent in it (tabernaculum capere), with planks and curtains. In the arx this was not necessary, because there was a permanent auguraculum. The Sept. usually renders äéëì , “temple,” by ïéêïò or íáüò , but in the Apocrypha and the New Test. it is generally called ôὸ ἱåñüí . Rabbinical appellations are áֵּéú äִîַּ÷ְãָּùׁ , beyfh ham-Mikdash, the house of the sanctuary, äִáְּçַéøָä áֵּéú , the chosen house, áֵּéú äָòֹìָîַéí , the house of ages, because the ark was not transferred from it, as it was from Gilgal after 24, from Shiloh after 369, from Nob after 13, and from Gibeon after 50 years. It is also called îָòåֹï , a dwelling, i.e. of God.
In imitation of this nomenclature, the word temple elsewhere in Scripture, in a figurative sense, denotes sometimes the Church of Christ (Rev_3:12): “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God.” Paul says (2Th_2:4) that Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Sometimes it imports heaven (Psa_11:4):
“The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord's throne is in heaven.” The martyrs in heaven are said to be “before the throne of God, and to serve him day and night in his temple” (Rev_7:15). The soul of a righteous man is the temple of God, because it is inhabited by the Holy Spirit (1Co_3:16-17; 1Co_6:19; 2Co_6:16).
II. History of the Temple and its Several Successors. — The First Temple. After the Israelites had exchanged their nomadic life for a life in permanent habitations, it was becoming that they should exchange also their movable sanctuary or tabernacle for a temple. There elapsed, however, after the conquest of Palestine, several centuries during which the sanctuary continued movable, although the nation became more and more stationary. It appears that the first who planned the erection of a stone-built sanctuary was David, who, when he was inhabiting his house of cedar, and God had given him rest from all his enemies, meditated the design of building a temple in which the ark of God might be placed, instead of being deposited “within curtains,” or in a tent, as hitherto. This design was at first encouraged by the prophet Nathan; but he was afterwards instructed to tell David that such a work was less appropriate for him, who had been a warrior from his youth, and had shed much blood, than for his son, who should enjoy in prosperity and peace the rewards of his father's victories. Nevertheless, the design itself was highly approved as a token of proper feelings towards the Divine King (2Sa_7:1-12; 1Ch_17:1-14). SEE DAVID.
We learn, moreover, from 1 Kings 5 and 1 Chronicles 22 that David had collected materials which were afterwards employed in the erection of the Temple, which was commenced four years after his death, in the second month (comp. 1Ki_6:1; 2Ch_3:2). This corresponds to May, B.C. 1010. We thus learn that the Israelitish sanctuary had remained movable more than four centuries subsequent to the conquest of Canaan. “In the fourth year of Solomon's reign was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid, in the month Siv; and ill the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.” SEE SOLOMON.
The workmen and the materials employed in the erection of the Temple were chiefly procured by Solomon from Hiram, king of Tyre, who was rewarded by a liberal importation of wheat. Josephus states (Ant. 8, 2) that duplicates of the letters which passed between Solomon and king Hiram were still extant in his time, both at Jerusalem and among the Tyrian records. He informs us that the persons employed in collecting and arranging the materials for the Temple were ordered to search out the largest stones for the foundation, and to prepare them for use on the mountains where they were procured, and then convey them to Jerusalem. In this part of the business Hiram's men were ordered to assist. Josephus adds that the foundation was sunk to an astonishing depth, and composed of stones of singular magnitude, and very durable. Being closely mortised into the rock with great ingenuity, they formed a basis adequate to the support of the intended structure. Josephus gives to the Temple the same length and breadth as are given in 1 Kings, but mentions sixty cubits as the height. He says that the walls were composed entirely of white stone; that the walls and ceilings were wainscoted with cedar, which was covered with the purest gold; that the stones were put together with such ingenuity that the smallest interstices were not perceptible, and that the timbers were joined with iron cramps. It is remarkable that after the Temple was finished, it was not consecrated by the high-priest, but by a layman, by the king in person, by means of extemporaneous prayers and sacrifices. SEE SHECHINAH.
The Temple remained the center of public worship for all the Israelites only till the death of Solomon, after which ten tribes forsook this sanctuary. But even in the kingdom of Judah it was from time to time desecrated by altars erected to idols. For instance, “Manasseh built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he caused his son to pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards; he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord to provoke him to anger. And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house,” etc. Thus we find also that king Josiah commanded Hilkiah, the high-priest, and the priests of the second order to remove the idols of Baal and Asherah from the house of the Lord (2Ki_23:4; 2Ki_23:13): “And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.” In fact, we are informed that, in spite of the better means of public devotion which the sanctuary undoubtedly afforded, the national morals declined so much that the chosen nation became worse than the idolaters whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel (2Ki_21:9) a clear proof that the possession of external means is not a guarantee for their right use. It appears also that during the times when it was fashionable at court to worship Baal the Temple stood desolate, and that its repairs were neglected (2Ki_12:6-7). We further learn that the cost of the repairs was defrayed chiefly by voluntary contribution, by offerings, and by redemption money (2Ki_12:4-5). The original cost of the Temple seems to have been defrayed by royal bounty, and in great measure by treasures collected by David for that purpose. There was a treasury in the Temple in which much precious metal was collected for the maintenance of public worship. The gold and silver of the Temple were, however, frequently applied to political purposes (1Ki_15:18 sq.; 2Ki_12:18; 2Ki_16:8; 2Ki_18:15). The treasury of the temple was repeatedly plundered by foreign invaders: for instance, by Shishak (1Ki_14:26); by Jehoaoh, king of Israel (2Ki_14:14); by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_24:13); and, lastly, again by Nebuchadnezzar, who, having removed the valuable contents, caused the Temple to be burned down (2Ki_25:9 sq.), summer, B.C. 588. The building had stood since its completion 415 years (Josephus has 470, and Rufinus 370, years). Thus terminated what the later Jews called áéú äøàùåï , The first house. SEE JERUSALEM.
2. The Second Temple. — In the year B.C. 536 the Jews obtained permission from Cyrus to colonize their native land. Cyrus commanded also that the sacred utensils which had been pillaged in the first Temple should be restored, and that for the restoration of the Temple assistance should be granted (Ezra 1, 6; 2Ch_36:22 sq.). The first colony which returned under Zerubbabel and Joshua having collected the necessary means, and having also obtained the assistance of Phoenician workmen, commenced in the second year after their return the rebuilding of the Temple, spring, B.C. 535. The Sidonians brought rafts of cedar-trees from Lebanon to Joppa. The Jews refused the co-operation of the Samaritans, who, being thereby offended, induced the king Artachshashta (probably Smerdis) to prohibit the building. It was only in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (summer, B.C. 520) that the building was resumed. It was completed in the sixth year of this king, winter, B.C. 516 (comp. Ezr_5:1; Hag_1:15). According to Josephus (Ant. 11:4, 7), the Temple was completed in the ninth year. of the reign of Darius. The old men who had seen the first Temple were moved to tears on beholding the second, which appeared like nothing in comparison with the first (Ezra 3, 12; Haggai 2, 3 sq.). It seems, however, that it was not so much in dimensions that the second Temple was inferior to the first as in splendor, and in being deprived of the ark of the covenant, which had been burned with the Temple of Solomon. SEE CAPTIVITY.
After the establishment of the Seleucidse in the kingdom of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes invaded Egypt several times. During his first expedition, B.C. 171, the renegade Menelaus (q.v.) procured the death of the regular high-priest Onias III (q.v.) (2Ma_4:27 sq.); during his second campaign, on retiring for winter-quarters to Palestine, Antiochus slew certain other persons, B.C. 170; and, finally, he pillaged and desecrated the Temple, and subdued and plundered Jerusalem, June, B.C. 168. He also ordered the discontinuance of the daily sacrifice. In December of the same year he caused an altar for sacrifice to Jupiter Olympius to be placed on the altar of Jehovah in the Temple (7, 2, 5). This was “the abomination that maketh desolate.” At the same time, he devoted the temple on Mount Gerizim, in allusion to the foreign origin of its worshippers, to Jupiter. Îåíéüò . The Temple at Jerusalem became so desolate that it was overgrown with vegetation (1Ma_4:38; 2Ma_6:4). Three years after this profanation (Dec. 25, B.C. 165) Judas Maccabseus, having defeated the Syrian armies in Palestine, cleansed the Temple, and again commenced sacrificing to Jehovah upon the altar there. He repaired, the building, furnished new utensils, and erected fortifications against future attacks (1Ma_4:43-60; 1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_13:53; 2Ma_1:18; 2Ma_10:3). Forty-five days after cleansing the sanctuary, Antiochus died. Thus were fulfilled the predictions of Daniel: from “the casting down some of the host and stars,” i.e. slaying some of the pious and influential Jews by Antiochus, especially from the death of Onias, B.C. 171, to the cleansing of the sanctuary, B.C. 165, was six years (of 360 days each) and 140 days, or 2300 days (Dan_8:8-14); from the reduction of Jerusalem, B.C. 168, to the cleansing of the sanctuary, B.C. 165, was three years and a half, i.e. “a time, times, and a half,” or 1290 days (7, 25; 12:7, 11); and from the reduction of Jerusalem, B.C. 168, to the death of Antiochus, which occurred early in B.C. 164, forty-five days after the purification of the Temple, 1335 days. As to the 140 days, we have no certain date in history to reckon them; but if the years are correct, we may well suppose the days to be so (Dan_8:12; Josephus, Ant. 12:7, 6; War, pref. 7; 1, 1, 1; 1Ma_1:46-47; 1Ma_4:38-61; 2Ma_5:11-27; 2Ma_6:1-9). SEE ANTIOCHUS. Alexander Jannaeus, about B.C. 106, separated the court of the priests from the external court by a wooden railing (Josephus, Ant. 13:13, 5). During the contentions among the later Maccabees, Pompey attacked the temple from the north side, caused a great massacre in its courts, but abstained from plundering the treasury, although he even entered the holy of holies, B.C. 63 (ibid. 14,4). Herod the Great, with the assistance of Roman troops, stormed the Temple, B.C. 37; on which occasion some of the surrounding halls were destroyed or damaged. SEE PALESTINE.
3. The Third Temple. — Herod, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Church-and-State party, and being fond of architectural display, undertook not merely to repair the second Temple, but to raise a perfectly new structure. As, however, the Temple of Zerubbabel was not actually destroyed, but only removed after the preparations for the new Temple were completed, there has arisen some debate whether the Temple of Herod could properly be called the third Temple. The reason why the Temple of Zerubbabel was not at once taken down in order to make room for the more splendid structure of Herod is explained by Josephus as follows (Ant. 15:11, 2): “The Jews were afraid that Herod would pull down the whole edifice and not be able to carry his intentions as to its rebuilding into effect; and this danger appeared to them to be very great, and the vastness of the undertaking to be such as could hardly be accomplished. But while they were in this disposition the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their Temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely. As Herod promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand wagons that were to bring stones for this building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skilful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for as many of the priests, and had some of them taught the arts of stone-cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this not till everything was well prepared for the work.” The work was actually commenced in the nineteenth year of the reign of Herod-that is, the beginning of B.C. 21. Priests and Levites finished the Temple itself in one year and a half. The out-buildings and courts required eight years. However, some building operations were constantly in progress under the successors of Herod, and it is in reference to this we are informed that the Temple was finished only under Albinus, the last procurator but one, not long before the commencement of the Jewish war in which the Temple was again destroyed. It is in-reference also to these protracted building operations that the Jews said to Jesus, “Forty and six years was this Temple in building” (Joh_2:20). SEE HEROD.
Under the sons of Herod the Temple remained apparently in good order, and Herod Agrippa, who was appointed by the emperor Claudius its guardian, even planned the repair of the eastern part, which had probably been destroyed during one of the conflicts between the Jews and Romans of which the Temple was repeatedly the scene (Josephus, Ant. 17:10). During the final struggle of the Jews against the Romans, A.D. 70, the Temple was the last scene of the tug of war. The Romans rushed from the Tower of Antonia into the sacred precincts, the halls of which were set on fire by the Jews themselves. It was against the will of Titus that a Roman soldier threw a firebrand into the northern out-buildings of the Temple, which caused the conflagration of the whole structure, although Titus himself endeavored to extinguish the fire (War, 6:4). Josephus remarks,” One cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were now observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house was burned formerly by the Babylonians. Now the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by king Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days.” The sacred utensils, the golden table of the shew- bread, the book of the law, and the golden candlestick were displayed in the triumph at Rome. Representations of them are still to be seen sculptured in relief on the triumphal arch of Titus (see Fleck, Wissenschaftliche Reise, 1, 1, plate 1-4; and Reland, De Spoliis Templi Hierosolymitani in Arcu Titiano, ed. E. A. Schulze [Traj. ad Rh. 17751). The place where the Temple had stood seemed to be a dangerous center for the rebellious population, until, in A.D. 136, the emperor Hadrian founded a Roman colony under the name AElia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem, and dedicated a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the ruins of the Temple of Jehovah. Henceforth no Jew was permitted to approach the site of the ancient Temple, although the worshippers of Jehovah were, in derision, compelled to pay a tax for the maintenance of the Temple of Jupiter (see Dion Cassius [Xiphil.], 69, 12; Jerome, Ad Jes. 2, 9; 6:11 sq.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecc_4:6; Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:18). Under the reign of Constantine the Great some Jews were severely punished for having attempted to restore the Temple (see Fabricii Lux Evangelii, p. 124).
The emperor Julian undertook, in 363, to rebuild the Temple; but, after considerable preparation and much expense, he was compelled to desist by flames which burst forth from the foundations (see Ammianus Marcellinus, 23:1; Socrates, ‘Hist. Eccles. 3, 20; Sozomen, 5, 22; Theodoret, 3, 15; Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte, 6:385 sq.). Repeated attempts have been made to account for these igneous explosions by natural causes; for instance, by the ignition of gases which had long been pent up in subterraneous vaults (see Michaelis, Zerstr. kl. Schrift. 3, 453 sq.). A similar event is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 16:7, 1), where we are informed that Herod, while plundering the tombs of David and Solomon, was suddenly frightened by flames which burst out and killed two of his soldiers. Bishop Warburton contends for the miraculousness of the event in his discourse Concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which Defeated Julian's Attempt to Rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. See also Lotter, Historia Instaurationis Templi lierosolymitani sub Juliano (Lips. 1728, 4to); Michaelis (F. Holzfuss), Diss. de Templi Hi. erosolymitani Juliani Mandato per Judaeosfrustra Tentata Restitutione (Hal. 1751, 4to); Lardner, Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, 4:57 sq.; Ernesti, Theol. Bibl. 9:604 sq. R. Tourlet's French translation of the works of Julian (Paris, 1821), 2, 435 sq., contains an examination of the evidence concerning this remarkable event. See also Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten, 4:211, 254 sq.; and id., Allgemeine Geschichte desjüdischen Volkes, 2, 158. SEE JULIAN.
A splendid mosque now stands on the site of the Temple. This mosque was erected by the caliph Omar after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Saracens in 636. Some think that Omar changed a Christian church which stood on the ground of the Temple into the mosque which is now called El Aksa, the outer, or northern, because it is the third of the most celebrated mosques, two of which, namely, those of Mecca and Medina, are in a more southern latitude. SEE MOSQUE.
III. Situation and Accessories of the Temple. —
1. The site of the Temple is clearly stated in 2Ch_3:1 : “Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David, his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing-floor of Ornan (or Araunah) the Jebusite.” In south-eastern countries the site of the threshing-floors is selected according to the same principles which might guide us in the selection of the site of windmills. ‘We find them usually on the tops of hills which are on all sides exposed to the winds, the current ‘of which is required in order to separate the grain from the chaff. It seems that the summit of Moriah, although large: enough for the agricultural purposes of Araunah, had no level sufficient for the plans of Solomon. According to Josephus (War 5, 5), the foundations of the Temple were laid on a steep eminence, the summit of which was at first insufficient for the Temple and altar. As it was surrounded by precipices, it became necessary to build up walls and buttresses in order to gain more ground by filling up the interval with earth. The hill was also fortified by a threefold wall, the lowest tier of which was in some places more than three hundred cubits high; and the depth of the foundation was not visible, because it had been necessary in some parts to dig deep into the ground in order to obtain sufficient support. The dimensions of the stones of which the walls were composed were enormous; Josephus mentions a length of forty cubits. It is, however, likely that some parts of the fortifications of Moriah were added at a later period. As we shall eventually see, the position and dimensions of the present area of the Haran reasonably correspond to the requirements of the several ancient accounts of the Temple. There can be little doubt, looking at the natural conformation of the rocky hill itself, that the central building always occupied the summit where the Mosque of Omar now stands. Tile theory of Fergusson (in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, and elsewhere) that it was situated in the extreme south-west corner of the present platform has not met with acceptance among archaeologists. SEE MORIAH.
The Temple was in ancient warfare almost impregnable, from the ravines at the precipitous edge of which it stood; but it required more artificial fortifications on its western and northern sides, which were surrounded by the city of Jerusalem; for this reason there was erected at its north-western corner the Tower of Antonia, which, although standing on a lower level than the Temple itself, was so high as to overlook the sacred buildings, with which it was connected partly by a large staircase, partly by a subterraneous communication. This tower protected the Temple from sudden incursions from the city of Jerusalem, and from dangerous commotions among the thousands who were frequently assembled within the precincts of the courts; which also were sometimes used for popular meetings. SEE ANTONIA.
2. Many savants have adopted a style as if they possessed much information about the archives of the Temple; there are a few indications from which we learn that important documents were deposited in the Tabernacle and Temple. Even in Deu_31:26, we find that the book of the law was deposited in the ark of the covenant; and according to 2Ki_22:8, Hilkiah rediscovered the book of the law in the house of Jehovah. In 2 Maccabees 2, 13 we find a âéâëéïèήêç mentioned, apparently consisting chiefly of the canonical books, and probably deposited in the Temple. In Josephus (War, 5, 5) it is mentioned that a book of the law was found in the Temple. It appears that the sacred writings were kept in the Temple (Ant. 5, 1, 17). Copies of political documents seem to have been deposited in the treasury of the Temple (1Ma_14:49). This treasury, ὁ ἱåñὸò èçóáõñüò , was managed by an inspector, ãáæõöýëáî , âæáø , and it contained the great sums which were annually paid in by the Israelites, each of whom paid a half-shekel, and many of whom sent donations in money and precious vessels, ἀíáèήìáôá . Such costly presents were especially transmitted by rich proselytes, and even sometimes by pagan princes (2 Maccabees 3, 3; Josephus, Ant. 14:16, 4; 18:3, 5; 19:6, 1; War, 2, 17, 3; 5, 13, 6; Cont. Apion. 2, 5; Philo, Opp. 2, 59 sq., 569). It is said especially that Ptolemy Philadelphus was very liberal to the Temple, in order to prove his gratitude for having been permitted to procure the Sept. translation (Aristeas, De Translat. LXX, p. 109 sq.). The gifts exhibited in the Temple are mentioned in Luk_21:5; we find even that the rents of the whole town of Ptolemais were given to the Temple (1Ma_10:39). There were also preserved historical curiosities (2Ki_11:10), especially the arms of celebrated heroes (Josephus, Ant. 19:6, 1): this was also the case in the Tabernacle.
The Temple was of so much political importance that it had its own guards ( öýëáêåò ôïῦ ἱåñïῦ ), which were commanded by a óôñáôçãüò . Twenty men were required for opening and shutting the eastern gate (Josephus, War, 6:5, 3; Cont. Apion. 2, 9; Ant. 6:5,3; 17:2, 2). The óôñáôçãüò had his own secretary (Ant. 20, 6, 2; 9, 3), and had to maintain the police in the courts (comp. Act_4:1; Act_5:24). He appears to have been of sufficient dignity to be mentioned together with the chief priests. It seems that his Hebrew title was äִø äִáִּéַú àַéùׁ , the man of the mountain of the house (Middoth, 1, 2). The priests themselves kept watch on three different posts, and the Levites on twenty-one posts. It was the duty of the police of the Temple to prevent women from entering the inner court, and to take care that no person who was Levitically unclean should enter within the sacred precincts. Gentiles were permitted to pass the first enclosure, which was therefore called the Court of the Gentiles; but persons who were on any account Levitically unclean were not permitted to advance even thus far. Some sorts of uncleanness, for instance that arising from the touch of a corpse, excluded only from the court of the men. If an unclean person had entered by mistake, he was required to offer sacrifices of purification. The high-priest himself was forbidden to enter the holy of holies under penalty of death on any other day than the Day of Atonement (Philo, Opp. 2, 591). Nobody was admitted within the precincts of the Temple who carried a stick or a basket, and who wanted to pass merely to shorten his way, or who had dusty shoes (Middoth, 2, 2).
IV. General Types of the Temple. — There is perhaps no building of the ancient world which has excited so much attention since the time of its destruction as the Temple which Solomon built at Jerusalem, and its successor as rebuilt by Herod. Its spoils were considered worthy of forming the principal illustration of one of the most beautiful of Roman triumphal arches, and Justinian's highest architectural ambition was that he might surpass it. Throughout the Middle Ages it influenced to a considerable degree the forms of Christian churches, and its peculiarities were the watchwords and rallying-points of all associations of builders. Since the revival of learning in the 16th century its arrangements have employed the pens of numberless learned antiquarians, and architects of every country have wasted their science in trying to reproduce its forms.
But it is not only to Christians that the Temple of Solomon is so interesting; the whole Mohammedan world look to it as the foundation of all architectural knowledge, and the Jews still recall its glories and sigh over their loss with a constant tenacity, unmatched by that of any other people to any other building of the ancient world.
With all this interest and attention, it might fairly be assumed that there was nothing more to be said on such a subject-that every source of information had been ransacked, and every form of restoration long ago exhausted, and some settlement of the disputed points arrived at which had been generally accepted. This is, however, far from being the case, and few things would be more curious than a collection of the various restorations that have been proposed, as showing what different meanings may be applied to the same set of simple architectural terms.
When the French expedition to Egypt, in the first years of this century, had made the world familiar with the wonderful architectural remains of that country, every one jumped to the conclusion that Solomon's Temple must have been designed after an Egyptian model, forgetting entirely how hateful that land of bondage was to the Israelites, and how completely all the ordinances of their religion were opposed to the idolatries they had escaped from forgetting, too, the centuries which had elapsed since the Exode before the Temple was erected, and how little communication of any sort there had been between the two countries in the interval. Nevertheless, as we shall presently see, the Egyptian monuments remarkably confirm, in many respects, the ancient accounts of the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Assyrian discoveries of Botta and Lavard have within the last twenty years given an entirely new direction to the researches of the restorers, and this time with a very considerable prospect of success, for the analogies are now true, and whatever can be brought to bear on the subject is in the right direction. The original seats of the progenitors of the Jewish races were in Mesopotamia. Their language was practically the same as that spoken on the banks of the, Tigris. Their historical traditions were consentaneous, and, so far as we can judge, almost all the outward symbolism of their religion was the same, or nearly so. Unfortunately, however, no Assyrian temple has yet been exhumed of a nature to throw much light on this subject, and we are still forced to have recourse to the later buildings at Persepolis, or to general deductions from the style of the nearly contemporary secular buildings at Nineveh and elsewhere, for such illustrations as are available. These, although in a general way illustrative, yet by no means, in our opinion, suffice for all that is required for Solomon's Temple. For some architectural features of that erected by Herod we must doubtless look to Rome. Of the intermediate Temple erected by Zerubbabel we know very little, but, from the circumstance of its having been erected under Persian influences contemporaneously with the buildings at Persepolis, it is perhaps the one of which it would be most easy to restore the details with anything like certainty. Yet we must remember that both these later temples were essentially Jewish, i.e. Phoenician, in their style; and we may there, fore presume that the original type, which we know was copied in plan, was likewise imitated in details to a very great degree. There are, however, two sources of illustration with which the Temple was historically connected in a very direct manner, and to these we therefore devote a brief attention before considering the several edifices in detail.
1. The Tabernacle erected by Moses in the desert was unquestionably the pattern, in all its essential features, of its Solomonic successor. In the gradually increasing sanctity of the several divisions, as well as in their strikingly proportionate dimensions, we find the Temple little more than the Tabernacle on an enlarged scale, and of more substantial materials. This is so obvious that we need not dwell upon it. SEE TABERNACLE.
2. The Egyptian Temples, in their conventional style, evince, notwithstanding their idolatrous uses, a wonderful relation to both the Tabernacle and the Temple. As will be seen from the accompanying plan of the Temple of Denderah, which is one of the simplest and most symmetrical as well as the best preserved of its class, there is a striking agreement in the points of the compass, in the extra width of the porch, in the anterior holy place, in the interior shrine, in the side-rooms, in the columnar halls; and in the grander Egyptian temples, such as the earlier portions of those at Luxor and Karnak, we have the two obelisks at the portal like the pillars Jachin and Boaz. These coincidences cannot have been accidental. Nor is this general adoption of a plan already familiar to the Hebrews inconsistent with the divine prescription of the details of architecture (Exo_25:9; 1Ch_28:12). SEE EGYPT.
V. Detailed Description of Solomon's Temple. —
1. Ancient Accounts. — The Temple itself and its utensils are described in 1Ki_6:7 and 2Ch_3:4. According to these passages, the Temple was 60 cubits long, 20 wide, and 30 high. Josephus, however (Ant. 8:3, 2), says, “The Temple was 60 cubits high and 60 cubits in length, and the breadth was 20 cubits; above this was another stage of equal dimensions, so that the height of the whole structure was 120 cubits.” It is difficult to reconcile this statement with that given in 1 Kings, unless we suppose that the words éóïò ôïῖò ìÝôñïéò , equal in measures, do not signify an equality in all dimensions, but only as much as equal in the number of cubits; so that the porch formed a kind of steeple, which projected as much above the roof of the Temple as the roof itself was elevated above its foundations. As the Chronicles agree with Josephus in asserting that the summit of the porch was 120 cubits high, there remains still another apparent contradiction to be solved, namely, how Josephus could assert that the Temple itself was 60 cubits high, while we read in 1 Kings that its height was only 30 cubits. We suppose that in the book of Kings the internal elevation of the sanctuary. is stated, and that Josephus describes its external elevation, which, including the basement and an upper story (which may have existed, consisting of rooms for the accommodation of priests, containing also vestries and treasuries), might be double the internal height of the sanctuary. The internal dimension of the “holy” which was called in preference äֵéëָì , was 40 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The holy was separated from the “holy of holies” ( ãְּáַéø ) by a partition, a large opening in which was closed by a suspended curtain. The holy of holies was on the western extremity of the entire building, and its internal dimensions formed a cube of 20 cubits. On the eastern extremity of the building stood the porch, àåּìָí , ðñüíáïò . At the entrance of this pronaos stood the two columns called Jachin and Boaz, which were 35 cubits high.
The Temple was also surrounded by a triple éָöַéò , story of chambers, each of which stories was five cubits high, so that there remained above ample space for introducing the windows, somewhat in the manner of a clear- story to the sanctuary. Now the statement of Josephus, who says that each of these stories of chambers ( òְìִòåֹú ) was 20 cubits high, cannot be reconciled with the Biblical statements, and may prove that he was no very close reader of his authorities. Perhaps he had a vague kind of information that the chambers reached half-way up the height of the building, and, taking the maximum height of 120 cubits instead of the internal height of the holy, he made each story four times too high. The windows which are mentioned in 1Ki_6:4 consisted probably of latticework. The lowest stair of the chambers was five cubits, the middle six, and the third seven cubits wide. This difference of the width arose from the circumstance that the external walls of the Temple were so thick that they were made to recede one cubit after an elevation of five feet, so that the scarcement in the wall of the Temple gave a firm support to the beams which supported the second story, without being inserted into the wall of the sanctuary; this insertion being perhaps avoided not merely for architectural reasons, but also because it appeared to be irreverent. The third story was supported likewise by a similar scarcement, which afforded a still wider space for the chamber of the third story. These observations will render intelligible the following Biblical statements: “And against the wall of the house he built stories round about, both of the Temple and of the oracle; and he made chambers round about. The nethermost story was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad; for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed nests ( îַâְøָòåֹú , narrowings or rebatements) round about, so that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. The house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither; so that there was neither hammer,: nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was building. The door of the middle story was in the right side of the house; and they went up with winding stairs into the middle story, and out of the middle into the third. So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high; and they rested on the house with timber of cedar” (1Ki_6:7). From this description it may be inferred that the entrance to these stories was from without; but some architects have supposed that it was from within; which arrangement seems to be against the general aim of impressing the Israelitish worshippers with sacred awe by the seclusion of their sanctuary. In reference to the windows, it should be observed that they served chiefly for ventilation; since the light within the Temple was obtained from the sacred candlesticks. It seems, from the descriptions of the Temple, to be certain that the ãְּáַéø , oracle, or holy of holies, was an adytum without windows. To this fact Solomon appears to refer when he spake, “The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness” (1Ki_8:12).
The ãַּáַéø , oracle, had perhaps no other opening than the entrance, which was, as we may infer from the prophetic visions of Ezekiel (which probably correspond with' the historic Temple of Solomon), six cubits wide. From 1Ki_7:10, we learn that the private dwellings of Solomon were built of massive stone. We hence infer that the framework of the Temple also consisted of the same material. The Temple was, however, wainscoted with cedar wood, which was covered with gold. The boards within the Temple were ornamented by beautiful carvings representing cherubim, palms, and flowers. The ceiling of the Temple was supported by beams of cedar wood (comp. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 16:69). The wall which separated the holy from the holy of holies probably consisted not of stone, but of beams of cedar. It seems, further, that the partition partly consisted of an opus reticulatum, so that the incense could spread from the holy to the most holy. This we infer from 1Ki_6:21 : “So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold; and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle, and he overlaid it with gold.”
The floor of the Temple was throughout of cedar, but boarded over with planks of fir (1Ki_6:15). The doors of the oracle were composed of olive-tree; but the doors of the outer temple had posts of olive-tree arid leaves of fir (1Ki_6:31 sq.). Both doors, as well that which led into the Temple as that which led from the holy to the holy of holies, had folding- leaves, which, however, seem to have been usually kept open, the aperture being closed by a suspended curtain-a contrivance still seen at the church- doors in Italy, where the church doors usually stand open; but the doorways can be passed only by moving aside a heavy curtain. From 2Ch_3:5, it appears that the greater house was also ceiled with fir. It is stated in 2Ch_3:5-9 “that the weight of the nails employed in the Temple was fifty shekels of gold;” and also that Solomon “overlaid the upper chambers with gold.”
The lintel and side posts of the oracle seem to have circumscribed a space which contained one fifth of the whole area of the partition; and the posts of the door of the Temple one fourth of the area of the wall in which they were placed. Thus we understand the passage 1Ki_6:31-35, which also states that the door was covered with carved work overlaid with gold.
Within the holy of holies stood only the Ark of the Covenant; but within the holy were ten golden candlesticks and the altar of incense. SEE ALTAR; SEE CANDLESTICK.
The Temple was surrounded by an inner court, which in Chronicles is called the court of the priests, and in Jeremiah the higher court. This, again, was surrounded by a wall consisting of cedar beams placed on a stone foundation (1Ki_6:36): “And he built the, inner court with three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams.” This enclosure, according to Josephus (Ant. 8:3, 9), was three cubits high. Besides this inner court, there is mentioned a great court (2Ch_4:9) “Furthermore, he made the court of the priests, and the great court, and doors for the court, and overlaid the doors of them with brass.” It seems that this was also called the outward court (comp. Eze_40:17). This court was also more especially called the court of the Lord's house (Jer_19:14; Jer_26:2). These courts were surrounded by spacious buildings, which, however, according to Josephus (War, 5, 5, 1), seem to have been partly added at a period later than that of Solomon. For instance (2Ki_15:35), Jotham is said to have built the higher gate of the house of the Lord. In Jer_26:10; Jer_36:10 there is mentioned a new gate (comp. also Eze_40:5-47; Eze_42:1-14). But this prophetic vision is not strictly historical, although it may serve to illustrate history (comp. also Josephus, Ant. 8:3, 9). The third entry into the house of the Lord mentioned in Jer_38:14 does not seem to indicate that there were three courts, but appears to mean that the entry into the outer court was called the first, that into the inner court the second, and the door of the sanctuary the third. It is likely that these courts were quadrilateral. In the visions of Ezekiel they form a square of four hundred cubits. The inner court contained towards the east the altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and ten brazen lavers; and it seems that the sanctuary did not stand in the center of the inner court, but more towards the west. From these descriptions we learn that the Temple of Solomon was not distinguished by magnitude, but by good architectural proportions, beauty of workmanship, and costliness of materials. Many of our churches have an external form not unlike that of the Temple of Solomon. In fact, this Temple seems to have been the pattern of ‘our church buildings, to which the chief addition has been the Gothic arch. Among others, the Roman Catholic Church at Dresden is supposed to bear much resemblance to the Temple of Solomon.
2. Modern Reconstructions. — It thus appears that as regards the building itself we have little more than a few fragmentary notices, which are quite insufficient to enable us to make out a correct architectural representation of it, or even to arrive at a very definite idea of many things belonging to its complicated structure and arrangements. All attempts that have been made in this direction have utterly failed, and, for the most part, have proceeded on entirely wrong principles. Such, was remarkably the case with the first great work upon the subject by professedly Christian writers namely, the portion of the commentary on Ezekiel by the Spanish Jesuits Pradus and Villapandus (1596-1604) which treats of the Temple. It was accompanied by elaborate calculations and magnificent drawings; but the whole proceeded on a series of mistakes-first, that the Temple of Ezekiel was a delineation of that which had been erected by Solomon; secondly, that this was again exactly reproduced in Herod's; and, thirdly, that the style of architecture from the first was of the Greeco-Roman character-all quite groundless suppositions. Their idea of Solomon's Temple was that both in dimensions and arrangement it was very like the Escurial in Spain. But it is by no means clear whether the Escurial was in process of building while their book was in the press in order to look like the Temple, or whether its authors took their idea of the Temple from the palace. At all events, their design is so much the more beautiful and commodious of the two that we cannot but regret that Herrera was not employed on the book and the Jesuits set to build the palace. Various other writers, chiefly on the Continent, followed in the same line — Haffenreffer, Capellus ( ÔñéóÜãéïí , printed in the Crit. Sacri), Lightfoot, Sturm (in Ugolino), Lamy, Semmler, Mela notice of whose treatises, some of them large and ponderous, may be seen in Bahr, Salomonische Tempel (§ 3).
They are now of comparatively little use' Lightfoot's, as Bahr admits, is the best of the whole, being more clear, learned, and solidly grounded in its representations But it has chiefly to do, as its title indicates (The Temple, especially as it stood in the Days of Our Savior), with the Temple of Herod, and but very briefly refers to the Temple of Solomon. An essentially different class of writings on the Temple sprang up after the middle of last century, introduced by J. D. Michaelis, which, in the spirit of the times, made little account of anything but the outward material structure, this being regarded as a sort of copy-though usually in a very inferior style of art of some of the temples of heathen antiquity. It is only during the present century that any serious efforts have been made to construct an idea of Solomon's Temple on right principles; that is, on the ground simply of the representations made concerning it in Scripture, and with a due regard to the purposes for which it was erected, and the differences as well as the resemblances between it and heathen temples of the same Hera. A succession of works or treatises with this view has appeared, almost exclusively in Germany, several of them by architects and antiquarians, with special reference to the history of the building art. They differ very much in merit; and in one of the latest, as perhaps also the ablest, of the whole, the treatise of Bahr already referred to (published in 1848), a review is given of the aim and characteristics of preceding investigations. As a general result, it has been conclusively established on the negative side, and is now generally acquiesced in, that the means entirely fail us for presenting a full and detailed representation, in an architectural respect, of the Temple and its related buildings. Its being cast in the rectilinear and chest form plainly distinguished it from erections in the Greek and Roman style; and, if the employment of Phoenician artists might naturally suggest some approach in certain parts to Phoenician models, it is, on the other hand, admitted by the most careful investigators in this particular department of antiquarian study that little or nothing is known of the Phoenician style of building (Bahr, p. 46). We here present the delineations of several later antiquaries, which show how variously the historical descriptions are interpreted and applied.
Entirely different from the foregoing is Prof., Paine's idea of the Temple, arising from his interpretation of the “enlarging” and winding about still upward” of Eze_41:7 to mean an over jutting of the upper chambers by galleries (Temple of Solomon, p, 38). — A serious objection to such an arrangement is the insecurity of a building thus widening at the top.
VI. Zerubbabel's Temple. — We have very few particulars regarding the Temple which the Jews-erected after their return from the Captivity, and no description that would enable us to realize its appearance. But there are some dimensions given in the Bible and elsewhere which are extremely interesting as affording points of comparison between it and the temples which preceded it or were erected after it.
The first and most authentic are those given in the book of Ezr_6:3 when quoting the decree of Cyrus, wherein it is said, “Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and: let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; with three rows of, great stones, and a row of new timber.” Josephus quotes this passage almost literally (Ant. 11:4, 6), but in doing so enables us to translate “row” (Chald. ðַãְáָּêְ , layer) as story ( äüìïò , so also the Sept.) as, indeed, the sense would lead us to infer-for it could only apply to the three stories of chambers that surrounded Solomon's, and afterwards Herod's, Temple; and with this again we come to the wooden structure which surmounted the Temple and formed a fourth story. It may be remarked, in passing, that this dimension of sixty cubits in height accords perfectly with the words which Josephus puts into the mouth of Herod (ibid. 15:11,1) when he makes him say that the Temple built after the Captivity wanted sixty cubits of the height of that of Solomon. For, as he had adopted, as we have seen above, the height of one hundred and twenty cubits, as written in the Chronicles, for that Temple, this one remained only sixty. The other dimension of sixty cubits in breadth is twenty cubits in excess of that of Solomon's Temple; but there is no reason to doubt its correctness, for we find, both from Josephus and the Talmud, that it was the dimension adopted for the Temple when rebuilt, or rather repaired, by Herod. At the same time, we have no authority for assuming that any increase was made in the dimensions of either the holy place or the holy of holies, since we find that these were retained in Ezekiel's description of an ideal Temple, and were afterwards those of Herod's. As this Temple of Zerubbabel was still standing in Herod's time, and was, more strictly speaking, repaired rather than rebuilt by him, we cannot conceive that any of its dimensions were then diminished. We are left, therefore, with the alternative of assuming that the porch and the chambers all round were twenty cubits in width, including the thickness of the walls, instead of ten cubits, as in the earlier building. This may, perhaps, to some extent, be accounted for by the introduction of a passage between the Temple and the rooms of the priest's lodgings, instead of each being a thoroughfare, as must certainly have been the case in Solomon's Temple. This alteration in the width of the Pteromata made the Temple one hundred cubits in length by sixty in breadth, with a eight it is said, of sixty cubits, including the upper room, or Talar, though we cannot help suspecting that this last dimension is somewhat in excess of the truth.
The only other description of this Temple is found in Hecataeus the Abderite, who wrote shortly after the death of Alexander the Great. As quoted by Josephus (Cont. Revelation 1, 22), he says that “in Jerusalem, towards the middle of the city, is a stone-walled enclosure about five hundred feet in length ( ὡò ðåíôÜðëåèñïò ) and one hundred cubits in width, with double gates, in which he describes the Temple as being situated. It may be that at this age it was found necessary to add a court for the women or the Gentiles, a sort of Narthex or Galilee for those who could not enter the Temple. If this, or these together, were one hundred cubits square, it would make up the “nearly five plethora” of our author. Hecatseus also mentions that the altar was twenty cubits square and ten high. Although he mentions the Temple itself, he unfortunately does not supply us with any dimensions.
The Temple of Zerubbabel had several courts ( áὐëáß ) and cloisters or cells ( ðñüèõñá ). Josephus distinguishes an internal and external ἱåñüí , and mentions cloisters in the courts. This Temple was connected with the town by means of a bridge (Ant. 14:4).
VII. Ezekiel's Temple. — The vision of a temple which the prophet Ezekiel saw while residing on the banks of the Chebar in Babylonia, in the twenty-fifth year of the Captivity, does not add much to our knowledge of the subject. It is not a description of a temple that ever was built or ever could be erected at Jerusalem, and can consequently only be considered as the beau ideal of what a Shemitic temple ought to be. As such it would certainly be interesting if it could be correctly restored; but, unfortunately, the difficulties of making out a complicated plan from a mere verbal description are very great indeed, and are enhanced in this instance by our imperfect knowledge of the exact meaning of the Hebrew architectural terms, and it may also be from the prophet describing not what he actually knew, but only what he saw in a vision.
Be this as it may, we find that the Temple itself was of the exact dimensions of that built by Solomon, viz. an adytum (Eze_40:1-4) twenty cubits square, a naos twenty by forty, and surrounded by cells of ten cubits' width, including the thickness of the walls; the whole, with the porch, making up forty cubits by eighty. The height, unfortunately, is not given. Beyond this were various courts and residences for the priests, and places for sacrifice and other ceremonies of the Temple, till he comes to the outer court, which measured five hundred reeds on each of its sides; each reed (Eze_40:5) was six Babylonian cubits long, viz. of cubits each of one ordinary cubit and a handbreadth, or, at the lowest estimate, twenty-one inches. The reed was therefore at least ten feet six inches, and the side consequently five thousand two hundred and fifty Greek feet, or within a few feet of an English mile, considerably more than the whole area of the city of Jerusalem, Temple included.
It has been attempted to get over this difficulty by saying that the prophet meant cubits, not reeds; but this is quite untenable. Nothing can be more clear than the specification of the length of the reed, and nothing more careful than the mode in which reeds are distinguished from cubits throughout; as, for instance, in the next two verses (Eze_40:6-7), where a chamber and a gateway are mentioned each of one reed. If “cubit” were substituted, it would be nonsense. Nevertheless, Prof. Paine has given a reconstruction of this as well as the actual Temple, for the description and dimensions in the vision are consistent with themselves and capable of being plotted down.
Notwithstanding its ideal character, the whole is extremely curious, as showing what were the aspirations of the Jews in this direction, and how different they were from those of other nations; and it is interesting here, inasmuch as there-can be little doubt but that the arrangements of Herod's Temple were in some measure influenced by the description here given. The outer court, for instance, with: its porticos measuring five hundred cubits each way, is an exact counterpart, on a smaller scale, of the outer court of Ezekiel's Temple, and is not found in either Solomon's or Zerubbabel's; arid so: too, evidently, are several of the internal arrangements. SEE EZEKIEL.
VIII. Herod's Temple. — The most full, explicit, and trustworthy information on this subject is contained ill that tract of the Jewish Talmud entitled Middoth (i.e. “measures”), which is almost as minute in its descriptions and dimensions (no doubt by parties who had seen, and ,as priests been familiar with, the edifice) as a modern architect's specifications. Besides this, the two descriptions of the temple, incidentally given by Josephus (ut sup.) are three consecutive accounts of the ancient structure. Our principal attempt will therefore be to follow these where they agree, and to reconcile their seeming discrepancies going at the same time all important allusions in the Bible and uninspired historians of antiquity, and constantly comparing the whole with the indications on the modern site. Occasional use, for verification, may be made of the measures in the spiritual temple of Ezekiel 40-42, but: with great caution, as but few of' them seem to have been borrowed from the actual type which, moreover, was Solomon's Temple, and not Herod's
(I.) The OUTER CIRCUIT OF THE TEMPLE. We assume that the present enclosure of the Haram corresponds to the areas of the Temple and of the Tower Antonia taken together; and the most convenient mode of considering the general contour of the outer wall will be after presenting the following arrangements:
1. Remains of cyclopean masonry are still found at intervals on all the sides of the present enclosure of the peculiar beveled character which marks their antiquity. The English engineers engaged in the late Ordinance survey traced all these along the southern end, and found them resting on the native rock, some of them still retaining the marks of the original Tyrian workmen (see Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 108). Now Josephus informs us (Ant. 15, 11, 3; War, 5, 5, 1) that the area of Moriah was enlarged by building up enormous walls from the valleys and filling them in with earth. The lower courses of these seem to have been buried under the rubbish that fell upon them from the demolition of the upper part of the walls, and have thus escaped. It is difficult to suppose that such masonry could have been the work of later times, or that the area would have been altered after such prodigious bounds had been set to it. Particular coincidences of ruins on the eastern, southern, and