TEMPLE
by
his
text
o{
1
K.
or
otherwise,
tells
us
that
Solomon's
altar
of
bumt-offering
(l
K
Q^)
was
of
brass
(cf.
the
'brazen
altar'
8"),
20
cubits
in
length
and
breadth
and
10
in
height
(2
Ch
4').
Its
position
was
on
the
site
of
the
earlier
altar
of
David
(2
Ch
3'),
which,
it
may
be
asserted
with
confidence,
stood
somewhere
on
the
sacred
rock
still
to
be
seen
within
the
Mosque
of
Omar
(see
§
2
above).
The
precise
position
which
the
altars
of
the
first
and
second
Temples
occupied
on
the
surface
of
the
rock,
which
measures
at
least
some
50
ft.
by
40
ft.,
must
remain
a
matter
of
conjecture.
Herod's
altar
was
large
enough
almost
to
cover
the
rock
(§
11
(c)).
This
question
has
recently
been
made
the
subject
of
an
elaborate
investigation
by
Kittel
in
his
Studien
zur
heb.
Arch'dologie
(.1908,
1-85).
Solomon's
altar
was
superseded
in
the
reign
of
Ahaz
by
a
larger
altar
of
more
artistic
construction,
which
this
sovereign
caused
to
be
made
after
the
model
of
one
seen
by
him
at
Damascus
(2
K
16'»-'6).
(c)
The
brazen
sea.
—
In
the
court,
to
the
south
of
the
line
between
the
altar
and
the
Temple
(IK
7"),
stood
one
of
the
most
striking
of
the
creations
of
Solomon's
Phcenician
artist,
Huram-abi
of
Tyre.
This
was
the
brazen
sea
(723-»,
2
Ch
i^-^),
a
large
circular
basin
or
tank
of
bronze,
10
cubits
'from
brim
to
brim'
and
5
in
depth,
with
the
enormous
capacity
of
2000
baths,
or
more
than
16,000
gallons.
Even
should
this
prove
an
exaggerated
estimate,
the
basin
must
have
bulged
very
considerably
in
the
middle,
and
the
medial
diameter
must
have
been
at
least
twice
that
of
the
mouth.
The
brim
curved
outwards
like
the
calyx
of
a
flower,
and
underneath
it
the
body
of
the
'
sea
'
was
decorated
with
two
rows
of
gourd-shaped
ornaments.
The
basin
rested
on
the
backs
of
twelve
bronze
oxen,
which,
in
groups
of
three,
faced
the
four
cardinal
points.
Notwithstanding
2
Ch
48,
written
centuries
after
it
had
disappeared
(Jer
52"'
^),
recent
writers
are
inclined
to
give
the
brazen
sea
a
purely
symbolical
signification.
But
whether
it
is
to
be
interpreted
as
a
symbol
of
the
primeval
abyss
(Gn
12)
and
of
J"'s
power
as
Creator,
or
in
the
terms
of
the
Babylonian
mythology
as
symbolizing
the
upper
or
heavenly
sea,
bounded
by
the
zodiac
with
its
twelve
signs
(the
12
oxen),
or
otherwise,
must
be
left
to
the
future
to
decide
(cf.
G.
A.
Smith,
Jerusalem,
ii.
65
f.).
(d)
The
brazenlavers.
—
A
similar
symbolical
significance
is
probably
to
be
assigned
to
the
ten
lavers
of
bronze
(1
K
7"-3s).
These
were
smaller
editions
of
the
brazen
sea,
being
only
four
cubits
in
diameter,
holding
only
40
baths
(c.
325
galls.),
and
resting
on
wheeled
carriers,
or
bases.
The
peculiarly
difiicult
description
of
the
latter
has
been
the
subject
of
special
study
by
Stade
(.ZATW,
1901,
145
ff.,
with
which
cf.
Haupt's
SBOT),
and
more
recently
by
Kittel
(op.
cit.
189-242).
It
must
suflice
here
to
say
that
each
carrier
was
4
cubits
in
length
and
breadth
and
3
cubits
in
height.
The
sides
were
open
frames
composed
of
uprights
of
bronze
joined
together
by
transverse
bars
or
rails
of
the
same
material,
the
wliole
richly
ornamented
with
palm
trees,
lions,
oxen,
and
cherubim
in
relief.
Underneath
were
four
wheels
of
bronze,
li
cubits
in
diameter,
while
on
the
top
of
each
stand
was
fitted
a
ring
or
cylinder
on
which
the
laver
directly
rested.
(e)
The
pillars
Jachin
and
Boas.
—
Nowhere
is
the
symbolical
element
in
these
creations
of
Huram-abi's
art
more
apparent
than
in
the
twin
pillars
with
the
mysterious
names
Jachin
and
Boaz,
which
were
set
up
on
either
side
of
the
entrance
to
the
Temple
porch.
They
have
been
discussed
in
the
art.
Jachin
and
Boaz
(where
'chapiter'
is
explained)
(see
also
Kittel's
art.
•Temple'
in
PRE\
xix.
[1907]
493
f.).
7.
General
idea
and
plan
of
Solomon's
Temple.
—
The
building
of
the
Temple
occupied
^vm
years
and
six
months
(1
K
6"'-)-
After
standihgfotTrliree
centuries
and
a
half
it
was
burned
to
the
ground
by
the
soldiers
of
Nebuchadnezzar
in
b.c.
587-6,
having
first
been
stripped
of
everything
of
value
that
could
be
carried
TEMPLE
away.
Before
passing
to
a
study
of
its
successor,
It
may
be
well
to
note
more
precisely
the
purpose
for
which
it
was
erected,
and
the
general
idea
underlying
its
plan.
As
expressly
implied
by
the
term
'the
house'
(bayith)
applied
to
it
by
the
early
historian,
the
Temple
was
intended
to
be,
before
all
else,
the
dwelling-place
ol
Israel's
God,
especially
as
represented
by
the
ark
of
J"
(see,
for
this,
2
S
7^-
™-).
At
the
same
time
it
was
also
the
royal
chapel,
and
adjoined
the
palace
of
Solomon,
precisely
as
'the
king's
chapel'
at
Bethel
was
part
of
the
residence
of
the
kings
of
Israel
(Am
7").
There
is
no
reason
for
supposing
that
Solomon
had
the
least
inten-tion
of
supplanting
the
older
sanctuaries
of
the
land
—
a
result
first
achieved
by
the
reformation
of
Josiah
(2
K
23).
As
regards
the
plan
of
the
new
sanctuary
as
a
whole,
with
its
threefold
division
of
court,
holy
place,
and
holy
of
holies
(to
adopt,
as
before,
the
later
terminology),
its
origin
is
to
be
sought
in
the
ideas
of
temple
architecture
then
current
not
only
in
Phoenicia,
the
home
of
Solomon's
architects
and
craftsmen,
but
throughout
Western
Asia.
Syria,
as
we
now
know,
was
influenced
in
matters
of
religious
art
not
only
by
Babylonia
and
Egypt,
but
also
by
the
so-called
Mycenaean
civilization
of
the
Eastern
Mediterranean
basin.
The
walled
court,
the
porch,
fore-room,
and
innermost
cella
are
all
characteristic
features
of
early
Syrian
temple
architecture.
Whether
or
not
there
lies
behind
these
the
embodiment
of
ideas
from
the
still
older
Babylonian
cosmology,
by
which
the
threefold
division
of
the
sanctuary
reflects
the
threefold
division
of
the
heavenly
universe
(so
Benzinger,
Heb.
Arch.,^
330,
following
Winckler
and
A.
Jeremias)',
must
be
left
an
open
question.
In
certain
details
of
the
furniture,
such
as
the
wheeled
carriers
of
the
lavers
and
their
ornamentation,
may
also
be
traced
the
influence
of
the
early
art
of
Crete
and
Cyprus
through
the
Phoanicians
as
intermediaries.
8.
The
Temple
of
Ezekiel's
vision
(Ezk
40-43).
—
Although
the
Temple
of
Ezekiel
remained
a
dream,
a
word
may
be
said
in
passing
regarding
one
of
its
most
characteristic
features,
on
account
of
its
influence
on
the
plan
of
the
actual
Temples
of
the
future.
This
is
the
emphasis
laid
throughout
on
the
sacrosanct
character
of
the
sanctuary
—
a
reflexion
of
the
deepening
of
the
conception
of
the
Divine
holiness
which
marked
the
period
of
the
Exile.
The
whole
sacred
area
covered
by
the
Temple
and
its
courts
is
to
be
protected
from
contact
with
secular
buildings.
One
far-reaching
result
of
this
rigid
separation
of
sacred
and
secular
is
the
introduction
of
a
second
Temple
court,
to
which
the
priests
alone,
strictly
speaking,
are
entitled
to
access
(Ezk
402™).
For
the
details
of
Ezekiel's
sketch,
with
its
passion
for
symmetry
and
number,
see
the
Comm.
and
Witton
Davies'
art.
'Temple'
in
Hastings'
DB
iv.
704
ff.
9.
The
Temple
of
Zektjbbabel.
—
The
second
Temple,
as
it
is
frequently
named,
was
built,
at
the
instigation
of
the
prophets
Haggai
and
Zechariah,
under
the
leader-ship
of
Zerubbabel.
According
to
the
explicit
testimony
of
a
contemporary
(Hag
2i»),
the
foundation
was
laid
in
the
second
year
of
Darius
Hystaspis
(b.c.
620)
—
a
date
now
generally
preferred
to
that
of
the
much
later
author
of
Ezr
38«-.
The
building
was
finished
and
the
Temple
dedicated
in
b.c.
516.
We
have
unfortunately
no
description
of
the
plan
and
arrangements
of
the
latter,
and
are
dependent
for
information
regarding
it
mainly
on
scattered
references
in
the
later
canonical
and
extra-canonical
books.
It
may
be
assumed,
however,
that
the
altar
of
bumt-ofEering,
previously
restored
by
the
exiles
on
their
return
(Ezr
3^),
occupied
the
former
site,
now
consecrated
by
centuries
of
worship,
and
that
the
ground
plan
of
the
Temple
followed
as
nearly
as
possible
that
of
its
predecessor
(cf.
G.
A.
Smith,
op.
cit.
ii.
ch.
xii.).
As
regards
the
furnishing
of
Zerubbabel's
Temple,
we
have
not
only
several
notices
from
the
period
when
it
was
still
standing,
but
evidence
from
the
better
known
Temple
of
Herod,
in
which
the
sacred
furniture
remained
