G. Ernest Wrighta <\/b><\/p>\n
By far the best known of Solomon\u2019s architectural wonders in Jerusalem was the Temple, undoubtedly a splendid work which reflected his major interest. It was built primarily as a royal chapel with priests made members of the royal court and subject to the king\u2019s control. The religious focus of both Israel and Judah was thus united with the king\u2019s court and a serious threat to the nation\u2019s unity was avoided. No high priest could ever set himself up as head of the state, as happened in Egypt, for example.<\/p>\n
Various attempts have been made to reconstruct the Temple, but until recent years sufficient archaeological data have been lacking, and many Biblical students have allowed their architectural and artistic imaginations full play. Today, the situation is changed, for there are many new discoveries which bear directly upon our problem.<\/p>\n
The first step in reconstructing the Temple is to study the description and dimensions given in 1 Kings 6 and Ezekiel 41. If one is architecturally inclined or interested in puzzles, he can spend an enjoyable evening in attempting to reconstruct the ground plan from <\/p>\n
The Stevens reconstruction of the Solomonic Temple, as drawn from specifications prepared by W. F. Albright and G. Ernest Wright<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 53<\/p>\n
the figures given, perhaps allowing himself the occasional use of a standard Bible dictionary and commentaries. It has long been recognized that Ezekiel\u2019s vision in Chapter 41 contains detailed measurements which agree with and supplement the account in 1 Kings 6 so well that it must preserve in part the data contained in some long-lost description of Solomon\u2019s Temple. There are still scholars who are hesitant in placing much confidence in it because of its date and visionary character. The increasing weight of discoveries, however, has led many archaeologists to place more and more reliance upon it.<\/p>\n
Yet even after we learn the dimensions of the Temple, something about its ground plan, and the description of the way in which it was built, we still should not know how to visualize it unless we know something about the way in which people built temples in those days. But where are we to look? Shall we examine the great temples of Egypt and reconstruct the Solomonic building after their model? Some have done so, but we now know that they are, for the most part, wrong. Shall we examine the great temples of Mesopotamia? Several scholars have done this also, at least one of whom would see in Solomon\u2019s \u201chouse\u201d (as the Bible frequently calls it) a typical Assyrian temple. We can now be fairly sure that such a theory is wrong.<\/p>\n
The Book of 1 Kings informs us that Solomon secured the aid of Hiram, king of Tyre, for material and technical advice. Thus while Israel furnished the labor, Hiram furnished the architects and artisans to draw up the plans and direct the work. To learn the character of Solomon\u2019s Temple, therefore, we must find out what Phoenician craftsmen were accustomed to build. What was their stock in trade?<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the temple art and architecture of Phoenicia during this period is not well known, since few excavations in contemporary city levels have been made. But from bits of information which can be gathered here and there we are now able to begin piercing the gloom. Various artistic treasures, for example, the collections of ivory panelling and inlay which have been found, enable us to visualize what is meant when we read about \u201ccherubim and palm trees and open flowers\u201d in 1 Kings 6:35. Excavations of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago at Tell Tainat (ancient Hattina) in Syria have uncovered the small chapel of the 8th-century kings of that city. This is the only temple contemporary with the kings of Israel ever found in Syria or Palestine, and it is most important to note that its plan is very similar to that of the Temple of Solomon. Of course, various other buildings of this period have been called temples. Especially has this been true in Palestine, where every sizable structure has at one time or another been thought by someone to be a temple unless there was definite proof to the contrary. It can now be categorically stated, however, that not a single temple (differentiating temples from shrines) dating between 1000 and 600 B C has been unearthed in Palestine.b Consequently, this newly discovered chapel at Tainat is most important. Other discoveries illuminate other details of the Solomonic Temple, some of which will be mentioned below.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 54<\/p>\n
Palace with chapel at Tell Tainat in Syria, dating from about the 8th century BC<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
A Tour Of The Temple<\/b><\/p>\n
Let us imagine for the moment that we are in the position of the Israelite High Priest, and are able to enter the building and look around. Approaching the entrance from the east, we notice that the whole edifice is set on a platform, about nine ft high (Ez 41:8).1 A flight of ten steps leads up to the entrance, on either side of which are two free-standing columns, known as Jachin and Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21), names which were probably the first words of inscriptions on them. These columns were made of bronze, and their height, including bases and elaborate capitals, was roughly 37 1\/2 ft. The circumference of the shafts is given as 18 ft. While their purpose is obscure, it is suggested that they were gigantic cressets or fire-altars on which sacred incense was burned. Their tremendous size must have been an awe-inspiring spectacle to the Israelites, and casting them would indeed be no minor matter even for us today. But these are only the beginning of the wonders of this Temple, which attracts us not because of its size, but because of its symmetry, delicacy, and good taste.<\/p>\n
Ascending the stairs, and stepping through the door, we find ourselves in the vestibule, known as the Ulam,<\/i> a room measuring some 15 by 30 ft. In front of us is a double door, about 15 ft in width, decorated with carved palm-trees, flowers, and cherubim. The carved work glitters in the light, because it is inlaid (or \u201coverlaid\u201d as the English has it) with gold leaf \u201cfitted into the graven work\u201d (1 Kgs 6:35). Passing through it, we enter the main room of the sanctuary, the \u201choly Place\u201d, or Hekal<\/i>. Light streams in from several windows (1 Kgs 6:4) inserted in the walls below the ceiling, and we can get some idea of the interior. The room is about 45 ft high, 30 ft wide and 60 ft long. It is floored with cypress and lined with cedar, so that none of the well-cut stone of the walls and foundations can be seen. Its roof is flat, supported by great cedar beams. The walls like the doors are decorated with palm-trees, open flowers, chains (2 Chr 3:5), and cherubim, carved in the cedar and inlaid with gold leaf. The walls are divided into panels by the palm-trees. In each panel is a cherub <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 55<\/p>\n
with two faces, a human face looking in one direction, and a lion face looking in the other (Ez 41:18 ff.). The eerie light coming through the windows above, the delightful odor of the cedar, the delicate decoration on the walls, the great height of the ceiling, the offerings and furnishings, and above all the knowledge that in the room beyond was the throne of God, lend a sanctity, a pleasant yet fearful mystery, which is indeed awesome.<\/p>\n
Around the room had been placed the sacred furniture: the golden candlesticks, the table of shewbread, and a small altar of cedar inlaid (or covered?) with gold leaf. The last mentioned was placed directly in front of a flight of steps leading into the room beyond. It was square, 3 ft across and 4 1\/2 ft high. Had we been living among the Canaanites a few generations earlier we should have been very familiar with this feature, since the Canaanites were accustomed to place such an altar or table in their temples directly in front of the steps leading up to the raised \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d on which was placed the statue of the god. On the small altar were placed offerings of incense with which the deity was thought to be pleased.<\/p>\n
Going around the altar and ascending the stairs, we open another door, like the other though smaller, and find ourselves in the \u201cMost Holy Place\u201d or the \u201cHoly of Holies.\u201d Its real name was Debir<\/i>, \u201cOracle,\u201d for here was the special abode of God. The room is a cube about 30 ft in each of its dimensions, and it contains no windows. No light illumines it except for what comes through the open door from the dim Hekal<\/i>. The pleasant odor of cedar pervades this room also; so we know that it too is lined with wood from the famous Lebanon forests of Hiram. That which immediately strikes our eye, however, is the dim outlines of two large olivewood cherubim, standing 15 ft high, and \u201coverlaid\u201d with gold leaf. Their faces are towards us, and their wings, each about 7 1\/2 ft long, are stretched out as though ready for flight. The two outer wings touch the side walls to the north and south; the inner wings meet each other in the center of the room. It is difficult to see in the darkness, but in all probability the Ark of the Covenant is to be found on the floor between the cherubim in the center of the room beneath the outstretched wings (1 Kgs 8:6).<\/p>\n
Backing reverently out of the Debir<\/i> and closing the double doors quietly behind us, we rapidly leave the interior of the Temple, and walk around the platform on the outside. We have plenty of space in which to wander because there are 7 1\/2 ft between the base of the building and the edge of the platform. The north side and the south side each has a door. Entering one of them, we find a stairway leading to two upper stories. In each of the three stories is a whole series of small rooms, the ceilings of which are supported by horizontal ledges in the main wall of the Temple. Each story is 1 1\/2 ft wider, than the one below. These rooms are apparently vaults used for storing the Temple treasure, the many precious objects used in the Temple worship.<\/p>\n
The Temple Courtyard<\/b><\/p>\n
Returning to the front of the Temple and standing by the pillars, Jachin and Boaz, we are in a position to look out over the courtyard. By far the most spectacular objects in front of us are the great altar of burnt offering and <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 56<\/p>\n
The Stevens reconstruction of the altar of burnt offering in Jerusalem, based on Ezekiel 43:13\u201317<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
the bronze Sea. Both are tremendous affairs. The altar is said to have been 15 ft high and 30 ft square, probably the base measurement (2 Chr 4:1). Judging from the description in Ezekiel 43:13\u201317, its general appearance was that of a Babylonian temple-tower (ziggurat). It was composed of three stages, each of the lower two projecting 1 1\/2 ft wider than the one above, so that a ledge was formed around each stage. The topmost stage was the hearth for burnt offerings; it was about 18 ft square, with \u201chorns\u201d projecting from each corner 1 1\/2 ft high. It was called harel<\/i>, meaning probably \u201cmountain of God,\u201d evidently a popular etymology of an Accadian term which could refer either to the underworld or to the cosmic mountain on which the gods were thought to live. A flight of steps on the east led up to the altar\u2019s hearth. The whole structure was set on a foundation-platform, placed in the pavement of the court, and called \u201cbosom.\u201d This peculiar name was again probably borrowed from Babylon where the foundation-platform of the \u201cTower of Babel\u201d (Etemenanki) was called \u201cbosom of the earth\u201d or \u201cbosom of the underworld.\u201d<\/p>\n
The bronze Sea is a great bowl, 15 ft in diameter and 7 1\/2 ft high. It is made of cast bronze, about 3 in thick, and its brim is \u201cwrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily\u201d (1 Kgs 7:23 ff.). It rests on the backs of 12 oxen which are arranged in threes, each triad facing one of the points of the compass. Computation has it that such a bronze bowl would weigh between 25 and 30 tons, a tremendous affair, to which one might compare the great bell in St. Paul\u2019s in London which weighs but 17 1\/2 tons. This Sea and the shafts of the Temple columns must have presented great technical difficulties in casting, and we can but marvel at the genius of the artisan Hiram, who \u201cfilled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in bronze,\u201d cast them in the clay beds of the Jordan valley, not far from the place where the River Jabbok flows into the Jordan (1 Kgs 7:13 ff. and 46). We are told further that \u201cthe weight of the bronze could not be found out,\u201d and one would judge that the cost of all that was used in the Solomonic building program would have been prohibitive were it not for the fact that Solomon controlled the Arabah mines whence the ore was taken to be smelted in his great smelter at Ezion-geber.<\/p>\n
A later record tells us that the Sea was for the special use of the priests as a place where they could wash (2 Chr 4:6). In any event it held some 10,000 gallons of water2 which was available for ablutions of one sort or another. Its ultimate fate, however, was assured. There was too much valuable bronze in <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 57<\/p>\n
A reconstruction of the Bronze Sea by William Morden<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
it. King Ahaz took the oxen from under it to pay tribute to the Assyrian king in 734 BC, and the Babylonians broke up the bowl and carried the fragments to Babylon after the capture of Jerusalem in 587 BC (2 Kgs 16:17 and 15:13).<\/p>\n
The Architectural Significance Of The Temple<\/b><\/p>\n
Having thus taken a rapid tour around the Temple, and having examined the two main objects of the courtyard, we may pause to take stock of what we have seen. One feature after another is now known to be perfectly at home in Syria.<\/p>\n
(1) The shape of the building with vestibule and free-standing columns is becoming increasingly familiar to us from the evidence available for Syrian architecture. There has been some debate as to whether the two columns should be placed in the door of the vestibule or flanking it on the outside. In the Syrian temple unearthed by the Oriental Institute at Tainat they are in the entrance to the vestibule. A passage in 2 Chronicles (3:15\u201317) states explicitly, however, that Solomon \u201cmade before the house two pillars…And he set up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand and one on the left.\u201d A number of Near Eastern parallels have been found with which the columns may be compared.<\/p>\n
(2) Another connection of the Temple with North Syrian and Phoenician architecture is the cedar lining of the interior. This is practically unknown in Mesopotamia, but several illustrations of it exist in the north. Incidentally, 1 Kings 6:36 tells us that the wall of the Temple courtyard was built \u201cwith three courses of hewn stone and a course of cedar beams.\u201d This feature seems to be exactly paralleled at Ras Shamra in Syria, and several other sites have a comparable technique in using wood with brick or stone.<\/p>\n
(3) Most Phoenician of all is the carved decoration: palm-trees and open flowers (also chains in 2 Chr 3:5) used for borders and panels with cherubim for filling. Various collections of Phoenician ivory under the strong influence of Egyptian art show us just what this sort of thing was. In the same picture fall the elaborate column capitals \u201cof lily-work,\u201d decorated with \u201cnets of checker-work, and wreaths of chain-work\u201d on which were hung large numbers of metal pomegranates (1 Kgs 7:15 ff.).<\/p>\n
(4) There is no doubt that the Phoenicians got the idea of lighting a room from windows under the ceiling, above the side rooms around the main room, from the Egyptians. It seems probable also that the clerestory (or clearstory) type of building which the Temple represents is one step in the long history <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 58<\/p>\n
Cherubim guarding a sacred tree<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
of our modern cathedral which goes back through Greek and Roman architecture into Syria and Egypt.<\/p>\n
The Temple of Solomon, therefore, was a typical Phoenician temple. Solomon was a great cosmopolitan; but according to the great prophets from the time of Elijah onwards the destiny of Israel was that she should be a \u201cseparate\u201d people, uncorrupted by the paganism around her, in order that the true knowledge of God might be obtained and that \u201cjustice might flow down as waters.\u201d Thus they were quite prepared to see the destruction of all that Solomon stood for to the end that the purposes of God might triumph.<\/p>\n
The Temple Equipment<\/b><\/p>\n
This conclusion about Solomon and his Temple is further substantiated by the ritual objects made for the Temple service. Let us examine some of them. First of all, what were the cherubim? Why should two such tremendous winged beings be placed in the \u201cHoly of Holies,\u201d and why their prominence on the walls and doors?<\/p>\n
Their nature had been forgotten by the 1st century AD and the Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that \u201cno one can tell what they were like.\u201d One thing we can be sure of is that they were not the charming winged boys of Renaissance art, a conception which is traced to little beings in Graeco-Roman art. A number of scholars have thought that they were the great winged bulls which were so popular in Mesopotamia. But a check of the art of Palestine and Syria shows that such monsters are practically non-existent in this area. A process of elimination shows that the cherub can have been only one thing: a winged sphinx, that is, a winged lion with human head. This is the most popular winged being in Phoenician art. It is to be found on artistic objects uncovered in almost every excavation in this area; and it is the only being which could possibly be the cherub.<\/p>\n
Why was it used? Among the Megiddo ivories is a plaque which shows a Canaanite king about 1200 BC seated on his throne. This throne is a chair supported by two cherubim. Other Canaanite kings were pictured on similar thrones. Just as these monarchs were enthroned upon the cherubim, so the God of Israel is often designated as \u201cHe who thrones (or is enthroned upon) the cherubim.\u201d In official Israelite religion it was against the law to make an image of God; so in the \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d it was his invisible Presence which was thought to be enthroned <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 59<\/p>\n
upon the two great hybrid beings, just as so many gods and kings of the Near East were often represented.<\/p>\n
What was the religious significance of the cherubim? That is something which is rather vague. A fragment of an ancient hymn contained the words: \u201cAnd He rode upon a cherub and did fly\u201d (2 Sm 22:11; Ps 18:10; to which compare Ez 10:20). From Genesis 3:24 we recall that cherubim were placed at the east of the Garden to guard the Tree of Life. This is exactly the conception which lies behind the cherubim and palm-trees carved on the walls and doors of the Temple. In Phoenician art two cherubim facing a tree is a very common motif. Cherubim as guardians of the tree are a popular subject in the ivory collections, and this fact together with the passage in Genesis gives us another hint as to the religious significance of these strange, divine emissaries.<\/p>\n
Besides the great altar and the bronze Sea, Solomon\u2019s imported craftsman, Hiram, is said to have made a large number of implements of various sorts for the Temple sacrificial service. Ten lavers of bronze and ten wheel-stands to hold them were cast. According to the Chronicler, they were to hold water in which the instruments used in the burnt offering could be washed. Such layers have been found in the excavations, both with and without wheels. One unearthed at Ras Shamra in northern Syria has metal pomegranates hanging from the bowl, which is the sort of thing described as decorating the capitals of Jachin and Boaz (1 Kgs 7:20).<\/p>\n
We have found little evidence as to the nature of the golden candlesticks or the table of shew-bread. Archaeological discoveries suggest several possibilities, but do not single out any one for either case. But what about the shovels and flesh-hooks (2 Chr 4:16), the tongs, cups, snuffers, basins, spoons, and firepans (1 Kgs 7:49 ff.)? If these are common religious instruments, we ought to be able to identify them. This we are able to do for some of them, but not for all.<\/p>\n
A laver found at Ras Shamra<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
A shovel from Megiddo, dating about 1300 BC is known; and a contemporary example has been found at Beth-shemesh. The flesh-hooks, according to passages in Exodus and Numbers, were used in connection with the altar. In the story of Eli (1 Sm 2:13f.) the implement was used to lift meat from cooking pots. Several of these three-tined forks have turned up in the excavations, having been used from very early times. The tongs must have been an enlarged form of the tweezer which is occasionally found in the excavations. The \u201ccups\u201d cannot be identified at present. They must have been used in Canaanite religion, however, since the name for them occurs three times in the well known epic poems of Ras Shamra, but the contexts do not help us to identify them.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 7:2 (Spring 1994) p. 60<\/p>\n
The \u201csnuffers\u201d are also rather mysterious. It is not known whether the Hebrew word really means \u201csnuffer.\u201d From its root one would judge that it should be something with which to prune the lamp wicks. \u201cBasin\u201d is another unidentifiable object, but the Biblical evidence indicates that it must have been a libation vase. The blood of the sacrifice was probably caught in such vessels and dashed from them upon the horns of the altar, and any other place where it was desirable to have a blood libation (cf. Ez 43:20). Libation vases are familiar to us on Mesopotamian reliefs, but they have not as yet been identified with certainty in Palestine.<\/p>\n
Fortunately, the \u201cspoons\u201d are known. The primary meaning of the Hebrew word for them is \u201cpalm,\u201d and numerous bowls with hands carved on their backs (the bowls thus being the palm of the hand) have been found in Palestine and Syria dating between about 1000 and 600 BC. A hollow tube opens into the bowl, which raises the question as to their purpose. The first and best explanation is that they were censers, the hollow tube allowing one to blow on the incense to get it to burn. An Egyptian relief seems to give some support to this theory. The only trouble with it is that little evidence of burning has been found in them. The latest explanation is that they were used for libations of some sort, the stem being connected with a vessel which, when tilted, would allow liquid to flow into the bowl of the \u201cspoon.\u201d This is a very forced explanation, but one must conclude that, given the above evidence, the reader\u2019s opinion is as good as any! The \u201cfirepans\u201d have not been identified, but presumably they were used to carry live coals to and from the altar.<\/p>\n
Shovel, censer and flesh-hook, drawn from excavated specimens<\/i><\/b>.<\/b><\/p>\n
The account given of these Temple instruments shows that much work yet remains to be done, but it also illustrates the fact that no accurate translation of the Old Testament can be made without more archaeological work and careful attention to its results.<\/p>\n
(Reprinted by permission from Biblical Archaeology,<\/i> by G. Ernest Wright, pp. 137-43, Westminster\/John Knox Press, Louisville KY, 1962.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
G. Ernest Wrighta By far the best known of Solomon\u2019s architectural wonders in Jerusalem was the Temple, undoubtedly a splendid work which reflected his major interest. It was built primarily as a royal chapel with priests made members of the royal court and subject to the king\u2019s control. The religious focus of both Israel and … Continue reading “THE
\nARCHAEOLOGY OF SOLOMON\u2019S TEMPLE”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15170","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}