TEMPEST

ness and revellings' close the list of 'the works of the flesh' (v.M). The flesh and the SpiritI — these, indeed, are 'contrary the one to the other' (v."). 'The flesh triumphs when the Spirit is quenched; but the Spirit's victory is gained, not by suppressing, but by controlling, the flesh. Those who are 'led by the Spirit' (v.'*), who 'live by the Spirit' and 'by the Spirit also walk' (v.^) attain, in its perfection, the grace of complete 'self-control.' J. G. Taskeb.

TEMPEST.— See Galilee [Sea of], 3; Whirlwind.

TEMPLE.— 1. The first Temple mentioned in con-nexion with the worship of J" is that of Shiloh (1 S 1"), 'where the ark of God was' (3') in the period of the Judges, under the guardianship of Eli and his sons. It was evidently destroyed by the Philistines after their decisive victory which resulted in the capture of the ark, as recorded in 4'™- ; for the descendants of Eli are found, a generation afterwards, acting as priests of a temple at Nob (21"'- 22'«). With the capture of Jerusalem by David, and the transference thither of the ark, a new political and religious centre was provided for the tribes of Israel.

2. Solomon's Temple. — The site. — The successive Temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod were buildings of moderate dimensions, and were built, by every token, on one and the same site. Now, there is only one place in Jerusalem where this site is to be looked for, namely, on that part of the eastern hill which Is now occupied by the large platform, extending to some 35 acres, known as the Haram esh-Sharif or ' Noble Sanctuary' (seejEEUSALEM,and below, §11). Therehas, however, been considerable difference of opinion in the past as to the precise spot within the Haram area on which the 'holy house' itself was reared. Thus a few British writers, among whom Fergusson,the distinguished architect, and W. Robertson Smith, in his article 'Temple' in the BBr', are the most influential, have maintained that the "Temple and its courts occupied an area about 600 ft. square in the south-western portion of the Haram. But the great majority of scholars, both at home and abroad, are agreed in placing the Temple in close connexion with the sacred rock (es-Sakhra) which is now enclosed in the mosque named after it ' the Dome of the Rock,' also, less appropriately, 'the Mosque of Omar.'

The remarkable persistence of sacred sites in the East is a phenomenon familiar to all students of religion, and there can be little doubt that the Chronicler is right in identifying the site of 'the altar of burnt-oflering for Israel ' (1 Ch 22') with the spot ' by the threshing-floor of Oman (in 2 S 24" Araunah] the Jebusite,' where the angel of the plague stayed his hand, and on which David by Divine command erected his altar of commemoration (see, further, § 6 (6)). This being so, the location of the 'Temple immediately to the west of the rock follows as a matter of course. The only possible alternative is to regard the rock as marking the site, not of the altar of burnt-oflering, but of 'the holy of holies' of the succes-sive Temples — a view beset with Insuperable difliculties.

3. The Temple building — Its arrangement and dimen-sions. — The Temple and its furniture are described in 1 K 6'-'* 7"-*' — two passages which are, unfortunately, among the most difficult in the OT, by reason of the perplexing technical terms employed and the unsatis-factory nature of the received text.

All recent study of these passages in commentaries and elsewhere is based on Stade's orilliant essay in his ZA TW iii. 129 ff.,with which of. Stade and Schwally's edition of 'Kings' in Haupt's SBOT. Other aids, in addition to the standard commentaries, and works on archaeology by Nowack, Benzinger, etc., areKittel's Bibl. Hebraica, Bumey's Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings, and Father Vincent's exegetical notes inRB, Oct. 1907. To these roust now be added G. A. Smith, Jerusalem (1908), vol. ii. (with plans), which deals fully with all the Temples (see Index, s.-y. 'Temple').

The Temple proper was an oblong building, 60 cubits

TEMPLE

in length by 20 in breadth (1 K 6'), with a porch in front, facing eastwards, of the same width as the main building and 10 cubits in depth. These, however, are inside measurements, as is evident from vv.^°- ^- ". The corresponding outside measurements depend, of course, upon the thickness of the walls, which is nowhere stated. But inasmuch as Ezekiel, the Temple of whose vision is in all essential points a replica of that of Solomon, gives 6 cubits as the thickness of its walls (Ezk 41'), except the walls of the porch, which were S cubits thick (40"), those of the flrst Temple are usually assumed to have been of the same dimensions. Less they could scarcely have been, if, as will presently appear, rebatements of three cubits in all have to be allowed in the lower half, since a thickness of three cubits in the upper half seems necessary, in view of the thrust of a heavy roof of 20 cubits' span.

The interior was divided into two chambers by a transverse partition, implied in 6", but disregarded in the inside measurements given in v.K The anterior chamber, termed the hekiU, and corresponding to the holy place in the Tabernacle, measured 40 cubits by 20, being twice as large as the inner chamber, the debir (EV 'oracle') or most holy place, which was only 20 cubits by 20 (v.'"). The latter in fact formed a perfect cube, since its height was also 20 cubits, as compared with that of 'the holy place,' which was 30 cubits (6^). Assuming that this was also the height of the porch, the whole building, we may conjecture, was covered by a flat roof of uniform height throughout, leaving an empty space 10 cubits in height over the inner chamber.

On all sides, except the front which was occupied by the porch, the Temple proper was surrounded by a lateral building of three storeys, the whole i's cubits high (so the emended text of v.n), each storey containing a number of small chambers for storage purposes. The beams forming the floors and ceilings of these side chambers were not let into the Temple wall, but were supported by making three successive rebatements of a cubit each in the wall (v.«). The chambers accordingly increased a cubit in width in each storey, from 5 in the lowermost storey to 6 and 7 in those above. The entrance to the side chambers was on the south side of the building. The nature and position of the windows which were made 'for the house' are alike uncertain. Openings fitted with lattice work are probably intended (v.*). Their position was most likely in the side walls above the roof of the lateral building.

The question of the area covered by the complete building now described has usually been answered hitherto by a reference to Ezekiel's Temple, which was exactly 100 cubits by 50. But a careful comparison of the measurements of the two Temples makes it extremely probable that the numbers just given are due to Ezekiel's fondness for operating with 50 and its multiples. The present writer is convinced that the prophet has not only increased the depth of the porch from 10 to 12 cubits (Ezk 40"' LXX), but has likewise added to the thickness of the walls of the side-chambers andoftheinteriorpartitionwall. Forifthefonneraretaken as 3 cubits in thickness, as compared with Ezekiel's 6, i.e. of thesame dimensions as the upper half of the Temple walls, and the partition as 1 cubit thick in place of 2 (Ezk 41'), we find the area of the whole building to be 96 cubits by 48, the same relative proportion (2:1), it will be noted, as is found in Ezekiel. Similarly, the outside width of the naos or sanctuary proper (32 cubits) stood to the total width as 2:3.

In the existing uncertainty as to the length of the cubit employed by Solomon's architects, it is impossible to trans-late these dimensions into feet and inches with mathematical exactness. If the long cubit of c. 20J inches employed by Ezekiel (see Ezk 40* and cf . 2 Ch 3') is preferred, the total area covered will be 164 ft. by 82 ft., while the dimensions of ' the holy place ' will be approximately 70 by 35 by 60 ft. in height, and those of ' the most holy place ' 35 by 35 by 35 ft. _A senous objection to this adoption of the longer cubit, which was not foreseen when theart. 'Weights and Measures' in Hastings' DB iv. (see p. 907 f .) was written, is presented by the detailed measurements of the interior of Herod's Temple in Josephus and the Mishna (see below, 512). These