TEMPLK

are numerically the same as those of the first Temple, but the cubit employed in the 1st cent, was the short cubit of 17'6 inches, as the present writer has shown by an inductive study of the Herodian masonry (ExpT xx. [1908], p. 24 flf.). Now, it is certain that the actual dimensions of Herods Temple were not less than those of Solomon's, as they would be if the cubits were in the ratio of 6 to 7. It is more than probable, therefore, that the dimensions above given should be reduced by one-sixth — the Chronicler notwith-standing; in other words, 140 by 70 ft. will be the approxi-mate area of the building, 60 by 30 ft., and 30 by 30 ft. — that of the 'holy' and 'most holy place' respectively.

4. The interior of the Temple. — The entrance to the Temple was through the open porch or vestibule on the eastern front. 'For the entering of the temple' was provided a large folding-door of cypress wood (6"), each leaf divided vertically into two leaves, one of which folded back upon the other. According to v.'s in its present form, the leaves were ornamented with carved figures of cherubim, palms, and fiowers, all overlaid with gold (but see below). The stone floor was covered with planks of cypress wood. That the latter should have been plated with gold (v."") is scarcely credible. The walls of both chambers were lined with boards (literally 'ribs') of cedar wood, 'from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling' (so read v."). There is no mention ui this verse, it will be noted, of any ornamenta-tion of the cedar panels, which is first found in vv." and 28; but the former verse is absent from LXX, and yv.ss-so are recognized by all as a later addition. The ceilings, as we should expect, were formed of beams of cedar (v.'- "). Over ail was probably laid an outer covering of marble slabs.

The inner chamber of the Temple was separated from ' the holy place, ' as has already been shown, by a partition wall, presumably of stone, which we have assumed above to have been a cubit in thickness. In it was set a door of olive wood, described obscurely in v.", which seems to say that its shape was not rectangular like the entrance door (see the Comm. on vv.*'- ''), but pentagonal; in other words, the lintel of the door, instead of being a single cross-beam, consisted of two beams meeting at an angle. In the centre of the chamber, facing the entrance (2 Ch 3"), stood two cherubim figm-es of olive wood, each 10 cubits high, with outstretched wings. The latter measured 10 cubits from tip to tip, so that the two sets of wings reached from the north to the south wall of 'the most holy place' (1 K 6^-^»). It is entirely in accordance with ancient practice that these symbolic figures should be overlaid with gold (v.^s).

But with regard to the excessive introduction of gold plating by the received text throughout, including even the Temple floor, as we have seen, there is much to be said In favour of the view, first advanced by Stade, that it is due to a desire on the part of later scribes to enhance the magnificence of the first Temple. In the original text the gold plating was perhaps confined to the cherubim, as has just been suggested, or to these and the doors, which appear to have had a gold sheathing in the time of Hezekiah (2 K 18").

5. The furniture of the Temple. — If 1 K 7"-" is set aside as a later addition (see the Comm.), the only article of Temple furniture is the altar of cedar introduced in the composite text of vv.™-^^. As there are good grounds tor believing that a special altar of incense was first introduced into the second Temple (see § 9), the former is now identified by most writers with the table of shewbread (see Shewbread; and Tabehnacle, § 6 (a)). Its position is evidently intended to be in the outer chamber in front of the entrance to the inner shrine. The same position ' before the oracle ' (deKr 7") is assigned to the ten ' candlesticks,' properly lampstands (Tabernacle, § 6 (B)), five probably being meant to stand on either side of the entrance. Although, from the date of the passage cited, we may hesitate to ascribe these to Solomon, they doubtless at a later time formed a conspicuous part of the Temple furniture (of. Jer 52").

TEMPLE

On the completion of the Temple, the sacred memorial of earlier days, the already venerable ark of J", was brought from the tent in which David had housed it and placed within 'the most holy place,' where It stood overshadowed by the wings of the cherubim (1 K S"). Another sacred object of like antiquity, the brazen serpent (see Serpent [Brazen]), found a place some-where within the Temple.

6. The court of the Temple and its furniture — (a) The court and gates. — The Temple of Solomon formed part of a large complex of buildings, comprising an arsenal, a judgment-hall, the palace with its harem, and finally the royal chapel, the whole surrounded by 'the great court' of 1 K 7»- '2. Within this enclosure, at its upper or northern end, wag 'the inner court' of

plan of royal buildinos (after Stade and Benzinger),

1. The great court. 2. The 'other' or middle court. 3. The inner (or Temple) court. 4. House of Lebanon. 5. Porch of pillars. 6. Throne porch. 7. Royal palace. 8. Harem. 9. Temple. 10. Altar.

6" 7'2 within which, again, stood the Temple (8"). It is of importance to note that this single court of the Temple was open to the laity as well as to the priests (8'*), as is specially evident from Jer 35'"' SS'" etc.

Several gates of this court are mentioned by later writers, but their precise position is uncertain. The main entrance was doubtless in the east wall, and may be indicated by 'the king's entry without' of 2 K 16", and 'the king's gate eastward' of 1 Ch g". The 'gate of the guard' (2 K 11"), on the other hand, may be looked tor in the south wall separating the Temple court from 'the other court' (1 K 7*) in which the royal palace was situated (cf. Ezli 43"-). There were also one or more gates on the north side (Ezk 8' 9^ Jer 20^ 'gate of Benjamin,' etc.). Cf. art. Jerusalem, II. 4.

(&) The altar of burnt-offering. — It is surprising that no reference is made in the early narrative of 1 K 7 to the making of so indispensable a part of the apparatus of the cult. In the opinion of most critics, this omission is due to the excision from the original narrative of the relative section by a much later editor, who assumed that, the brazen altar of the Tabernacle accompanied the ark to the new sanctuary (but see Burney, Notes on Heb. Text, etc., 102 f.). The Chronicler, whether informed

899