Encyclopaedia Biblica/Tebah-Temple

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



(rat? ; T A.Be [AD], - x [L]), a son of NAHOR by Reumah (a corruption of Jerahmeel), Gen. 22:24. The names in the Nahorite genealogy (vv. 20-24) make a southern (i.e., N. Arabian) connection very plausible. Against this we must not quote 'Aram', for 'Aram' (i.e. , Jerahmeel) is primarily a N. Arabian name. The brethren of 'Tebah' are Gaham (rather, Naham, j [G] and 3 [N] being confounded), Tahash (i.e. , Hushah = Cushah ?), and Maacah. Nor can we safely urge that BETAH in 2 S. 8:8 (which, if LXX may be trusted, is miswritten for Tebah) or Tibhath in 1 Ch. 188 (for which Pesh. has ma) was a city of Hadad-ezer, king of Zobah; for it is maintained elsewhere (ZOBAH) that the wars of David referred to were in the S. , not in the N. , and that for 'Hadad-ezer, ben Rehob, king of Zobah', the original narrative had 'Hadad, ben Rehob[oth], king of Missur'. We can now for the first time, as it seems, give an altogether satisfactory explanation of 2 S. 8:8 and the || 1 Ch. 188, as well as of 1 K. 7:45-46 (with || in Ch. ). Betah turns out to be nearer the truth than Tebah. The Sam. passage should run thus, 'And from Rehoboth, the city of Hadad, king David took brass in great abundance', while in the latter the name of the city should be 'Rehoboth-jerahmeel'. 1 It would seem that there was more than one Jerahmeelite city called 'Jerahmeel', at least if we are right in supposing that the city, whose capture by David is described in 2 S. 12:26+, was not 'Rabbath' but 'Rehoboth' (of the Jerahmeelites).

Had the redactor who is responsible for the present form of the narrative in 2 S. 8:3+ a conception such as is geographically possible of the geography of David s 'Aramaean campaign'? In order to answer in the affirmative we should have to emend 'from Betah and from Berothai' ( ninaci fieao) into 'from Tebah and from Tabbur' (-11392? nnac). Tebah might be the Tubihi of the Am. Tablets (127, 5, 14, etc.), the Dibhu of the List of Thotmes III. (RP(2), 543 ; Sayce, Acad., Feb. 21, 1891; WMM As. u. Eur. 173:396). In the 'Travels of an Egyptian' (RPM, 109:111; Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 340) Kadesh on the Orontes, Tubihi, Tihis (see THAHASH), and Dapuru appear as neighbouring places.

We now turn to 1 K. 7:45b-47, the difficulties of which neither Renzinger nor Kittel appear to have altogether removed ; the help which the former scholar derives from LXX{L} is illusory. It should be noticed that the current rendering, 'of burnished brass', for cica rtJ rl3> puts an undue strain on the root-meaning f anD- ^ e cannot pause to investigate Is. 18:2, 18:7, Ezek. 21:14-16 [21:9-11], but may suggest that even the RV must not be followed blindly. The key to 1 K. l.c. (and the || 2 Ch. 4:16-17) is furnished by 1 Ch. 18:86, which shows that the original narrative of Hiram the artificer stated that the brass came from a city of Hadad, king of Missur. In short, the OTOO of K. and the pnc of Ch. come respectively from i"C~IO and ni3rn, and the second of these readings is the better. "1333 and pTn which follow are corrupt forms of a dittographed ^NDITT ( see JORDAN, 2 [2]).

The result is that 1 K. 7:46, 2 Ch. 4:17 should run thus, 'Of brass from Rehoboth-jerahmeel did Jerahmeel [i.e., 'Hiram'; see HAMMELECH] cast them, in Maacath-aram, between Maacath and Zarephath' (cp SUCCOTH, ZARETHAN). An imaginary place 'Tebah' has in fact usurped a part of the honour which rightly belongs to REHOBOTH [q. v. ]. Cp the commentaries.

T. K. C.


(-liTnp, perhaps for Tobliyyahu, 'Yahwe is gracious to me', 38 ; T&BA.M [B], TABeAiAC [A], T&BehA [L]). a Merarite doorkeeper (1 Ch. 26:11). But (in spite of LXX) the name should possibly be read ?n"3ia [tobijah] (perhaps from irrna misread irr yaa) ; cp TOBIJAH, I, also TABEEL. 2

S. A. C.


(r82?), Esth. 2:16. See MONTH, 2.


(DTOEpnn), Ezek. 30:18. See TAHPANHES.


(nsnjjl, as if 'supplication', 74; cp OS 1666 G&NA X<*Pic [thana charis]). father of IR-NAHASH, 1 Ch. 4:12-13 (9<MM<\N [thaiman] [B], 0&N& [A], 0eeNN& [!>])

If RECAH (q.v.) is rightly corrected to Recab, Tehinnah should almost certainly be n3 p, KINAH {3} (Josh. 15:22), i.e., a settlement of the Kenites. See IR-NAHASH. Pesh. has, 'he begat Ja'azer', for which reading there is no obvious reason. T. K. C.

1 In 2 S. l.c. rm3 and >rn3 are both fragmentary representations of ni3m (Rehoboth), and in 1 Ch. l.c. J13C1 fin3B represents jNCnT ni3m (Rehoboth-jerahmeel). For the latter emendation, cp probably pap miswritten in Judg. 10:5 for 7KDITV Note, however, that LXX{BNAL}'s f K \ f KT(av [eklektoon] implies niim, which is virtually ni3m> a correction of n3D , J1301 s not represented. Cp MEROM.

2 According to Cheyne, the name is probably either from SaiP, 'a man of TUBAL' (q.v.), or, if 1,T is correct, from 73D 7NCnT, Tubal-jerah[meel] (cp |>p 731:1, 'Tubal-kain'). Cp ZEDEKIAH, i.

3 When p had become n, it was natural for a pious scribe to prefix j-| [Th], and so get the meaning 'supplication'.


(H^iSt), Is. 6:13 AV, RV TEREBINTH (q.v.).


or TEKOAH (flipFI, HinpJV {1} hardly = 'settlement', from \/l?pn [root ThQA], to strike [tent-pegs into the ground]; 6eKO)e 2 ). gentilic Tekoite ([DPlflpJfl, 9eKoo(e)iTHC 3 ). 'woman of Tekoa' (JVUIpn, 6eKCO- 6ITIC [1*A] -KOyi- [L]) a city S. of Bethlehem, on the borders of the wilderness to which it gave name ("DTD 1/lpF), 2 Ch. 20:20, THN epHMON 9-. 1 Macc. 9:33). Assuming that the same place is always meant, we find it mentioned as the residence of a 'wise woman' who interceded for Absalom ; as one of the towns fortified by Rehoboam ; and as the birthplace of the prophet Amos (2 S. 14:2, 1 Ch. 2:24, 2 Ch. 20:20, Jer. 6:1, Am. 1:1). It is also mentioned in Josh. 15:59 LXX{BAL] (06/cu>) where it heads the list of eleven towns wanting in MT (Tekoa, Ephrathah which is Bethlehem, Peor [see under ETAM, i], Etam, Kulon [q.v.], Tatam, Sores [see SEIR, 2], Karem [q.v. |, Galem [q.v.], Bether [q.v.] and Manocho [see MANAHATH, 3]). It comes also into an obscure genealogy in 1 Ch. 4:5-8 where Tekoa (cp 1 Ch. 224) figures as son of ASSHUR and (if for Coz we ought to read Tekoa) as father of Anub and Zobebah and the families of Aharhel 4 (d5f\(J>ou PT/xa/3 [adelphou rechab]]) son of Harum (i.e., Jearim ; see LXX{BA} ). Still assuming that there is only one Tekoa, we may identify it with the modern Teku'a, which lies six miles S. of Bethlehem, on an elevated hill, not steep, but broad at the top, and covered with ruins to the extent of four or five acres. These consist chiefly of the foundations of houses built of squared stones, some of which are bevelled. The middle of the space is occupied by the ruins of a Greek church. The site commands extensive prospects (cp AMOS, 3), and towards the E. is bounded only by the level mountains of Moab. Before and during the Crusades Tekoa was well inhabited by Christians ; but in 1138 A.D. it was sacked by a party of Turks from beyond the Jordan, and nothing further is known of it till the seventeenth century, when it lay desolate, as it has ever since done.

It is, however, by no means certain that all the references to 'Tekoa' mean the same place. In Jer. 6:1, for instance, a more southerly place is meant (see TEL-HARSHA). It is contended elsewhere (see PROPHET, 26, 40; ZAPHON) that it is a Jerahmeelite invasion that is most probably apprehended; the places mentioned should be sought in the Negeb. Amos too was hardly a native of the Tekoa, S. of Bethlehem (see PROPHET, 10, 35). And in 1 Ch. 4:4-5, just as 'Beth-lehem' is not the place in Judah so called but Beth-jerahmeel in the Negeb, so 'Tekoa' is more southerly than the best known place of that name.

T. K. C.

1 The ending is hardly locative ; nyipn in 2 S. 14:2 is probably a corruption of roj, JV3 'Beth-maacah' (= Beth-jerahmeel, see SAUL, 4), a 'wise woman' of which place is mentioned in connection with Joab in 2 S. 20:15-16. Very possibly too, we may explain yipn itself as a primitive popular corruption of n 3

2 The variants are : 2 S. 14:2 Seicowe [L], 1 Ch. 2:24 fleicwv [A], 4:5 deKiap. [thekoom] [A], Jer. 6:1, Am. 1:1 flexoue.

3 The variants are : 2 S. 23:26 flexci [L], 1 Ch. 11:28 60c<o [BK], o flex&n [A], 27:9, 0e/ca)i>ei T r,s [thekooneites] [B], Neh 35:27 0eiccoi/ui [thekooeim] [xAL], -eu [-ein] [B and X in v. 27], BeKialrai [thekooitai] [v. 27],

4 Surely irnnN s one of the numerous distortions of 7KDHT Grimeisen's pointing ?rn~K (Ahnencultus, 257), leads to no satisfactory explanation. Cp LXX{L}, TTJS TOV apatrjA a&e\t}>ov pr;xa0 [tes tou araiel adelphou rechab].

5 'Tel' (Ass. til[l]u), in ancient, as in modern times, formed the first part of the name of many Babylonian places situated near a mound of ruins of a previous settlement (cp 7B, Dt. 13:17 [13:16], Josh. 8:23). Cp TEL-HARSHA, TEL-MELAH, and TELASSAR (Tel-Asshur).

6 Calwer Bib.-Lexikon (2), 901a


(T3X 7F) 3 ; Merecopoc [meteooros], see below; [ad] aceruum novarum frugum), the seat of a colony of Jewish exiles (Ezek. 3:15-16). To a Hebrew ear the name meant 'Mound (hill) of ears of corn' (cp ABIB). As, however, Friedrich Delitzsch has pointed out, 6 if it is a Babylonian place-name, the right form ought to be Tel-abub (Til-abubi). Abubu ( 'flood-storm' or 'storm-flood'?) is the proper Assyrian word for the Deluge (see DELUGE, 13, n. i); Til-abubi, as a Babylonian name, might mean either a mound of ruins so ancient (cp D^iy main) that it was called a Deluge-mound, or one that had been produced by the rushing in (possible at any time) of a cyclone from the Persian Gulf. There is a common phrase in the Assyrian inscriptions, 'I made (or, destroyed) the city like a til-abubi'. 1

If, however, the view advocated in PROPHET, 27, is correct, and Ezekiel together with Jehoiachin and his fellow-exiles resided in N. Arabia, we must look out for another explanation. And it so happens that this view (the 'Jerahmeelite theory') supplies the only key to the manifold corruptions of the single passage in which Tel-abib occurs (see Crit. Bib.). The text of Ezek. 3:14-15 which results from the application of this key runs thus: {2} -

'(14) And (the) spirit lifted me up and took me to Maacath of Jerahmeel, and the hand of Yahwe upon me was strong. (15) And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-arab [Ishmael, by the river of Jerahmeel], and to Tel-asshur [Jerahmeel, Ishmael],

and there for seven days I dwelt among them astonished'.

The text which underlies LXX is only slightly different; /ucrctopo; ica irtpiT)Aeoi>=31DNl = TIB Nll. Probably we may restore it thus in v. 15 :

And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-jerahmeel and Tel-asshur [Ishmael, by the river of Jerahmeel, Ishmael].

Thus, combining MT and LXX, we are led to suspect that Tel-arab and Tel-jerahmeel were two names for the same place. We know of a 'valley (N J) of Jerahmeel' (see SALT, VALLEY OK) and also, probably, of a 'wady' (Vm) of 'Arab'. 3 We also find a Tel-melah or Tel-jerahmeel in Ezra -Neh. (see TEL- MELAH), and, as a probable equivalent of Tel-asshur, Tel-harsha or Tel-ashhur (see TEL-HARSHA). Very possibly, however, a further result awaits us. ^n, wherever it occurs in compound names, is simply a short way of writing ^airii, TUBAL(q.v.). See Crit. Bib.

T. K. C.

1 Del. Ass. HWB, s.v. 'abubu'; Schr. KAT (2) 234 (29), 262 (1).

2 It will be understood that the words in [ ] are presumed to be glosses. Arabia, Ishmael, Jerahmeel, and Asshur were in fact, as, in the present writer s view, the phenomena of the Psalms abundantly show, practically synonymous to the later writers.

3 In Am. 6:14 non is probably a corruption of Maacath (a Jerahmeelite name) and n:nn 7[U of 3^ ) G riJ? 3 (so read) in Is. 15:7. See Crit. Dib.


(rfcj-l, GAAeec [B], e&Ae [A], e^Ad. [L]), mentioned in the list of the b'ne Ephraim (1 Ch. 7:25). There are, however, several corrupt repetitions in this section (1 Ch. 7:20+), and it is probable that nSn is a corruption of n^rw ; cp Wellhausen, Prol. (4) 214. See EPHRAIM, 12, SHUTHELAH.


(D^U), 1 S. 15:4, and Telam (Heb. D7li?O), 1 S. 27:8 RVmg. See TELEM.


(ibfXDn ; e&eceeN [thaesthen] [B], 9AA<\cc*.p [AL] in Ki., ev X<Vr> 0/na [* (sup ras e 2 fort o)], -9 [B], Se^av [theman] [Xc] ; daifj-aS [thaimad] [A], flat [jxa]0 [Ovid], Otu/jLav [Q] ; thelassar).

Telassar is named in 2 K. 19:12 (Is. 37:12) as the location of the 'children of Eden'. The places Gozan, Haran, and Rezeph named before Telassar follow an order from E. to W. This suggests that 'the children of Eden' once dwelt nearer to Palestine ( Judah ?) than Rezeph, which was W. of the Euphrates. The conquest of these cities is ascribed to the kings, 'my fathers', who had preceded Sennacherib.

The identification of the 'children of Eden' with the Bit Adini of the Assyrian Inscriptions already made by Schrader (KATW, 327) has more or less difficulty (cp BETH-EDEN) according to the situation in which this widely scattered Aramaic folk are supposed to be located. The Bit Adini of the earlier times formed a powerful race inhabiting the district S. of Edessa, over Haran between the Balikh (on the E. of which lay Gozan) and the Euphrates. But it also included a wide strip on the W. bank of the Euphrates, in which lay many large cities. This country made strong resistance to Ashur-natsir-pal (KB 164, 102, 104, 116), but was finally conquered by Shalmaneser II. (858 B.C.). Shalmaneser changed many of the city names, among others giving to Nappigi (Mabbug, Bambyke) the name of Lita-Ahsur (KB 1:132, 1:156, 1:162). There was also a branch of the Aramaic Bit Dakkuri who lay E. of the Tigris in Babylonia. A third settlement of the Bit Adini is associated by Tiglath-pileser III. with Hauran, Azaz, and Aribua, in Syria, which may possibly be the 'house of Eden' referred to in Amos 1:5 (Winckler, AOF 1104). Whether the children of Eden had their home in Telassar and were now deported elsewhere, or whether they had been deported to Telassar will depend on the identifications adopted.

It is tempting to recognise in Telassar the Til-Ashshuri of Tiglath-pileser III. (Tiele, BAG 231); and of Esarhaddon (KB 2:128, 2:144). But these passages show that there were two different places of that name. The first was certainly in Babylonia ; but there is no indication that the Bit Adini were settled there. The second was inhabited by an Aramaic people, the Bit Parnaki, and Esarhaddon says that the place had native names Mihranu and Pitanu. Mihranu suggests Tell Machre, which would place it NE. of the Tigris (?). But unless the Bit Parnaki were a branch of the Bit Adini, there is nothing to connect this Til-Ashshuri with 'the children of Eden'.

On the one hand, Til Ashshuri may have been one of the names conferred by Shalmaneser on one of the conquered cities of Bit Adini, or Tel-Assar may be a corruption of Lita-Ashur, or of Til-bashere a city in Shalmaneser's Bit Adini ; or, on the other hand, the name Telassar may be derived from a totally different name, not yet recognised.

[The closing sentence of the preceding article opens the door for a renewed examination of the question from the point of view of SENNACHERIB, 5. 'Rezeph' and 'the b'ne Eden in Telassar' are easily explicable if it is a king of the N. Arabian Ashhur whose victories are referred to in 2 Ki. 19:12 (Is. 37:12). 'Eden' was a district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see PARADISE, 7), and Tel-ashhur is a very probable name, if we should not rather read Tubal-ashhur. See TELHARSHA. T. K.C.]

C. H. W. J.


(0?^). a city in the Negeb, mentioned between ZIPH and BEALOTH (Josh. 15:24 ; jeAeM [AL], MAINAM [mainam] [B?]). This may be the TELAIM (n\xjra), or perhaps rather cx rn (Telam), where Saul mustered his warriors before fightingwiththeAmalekites. 1 S.15:4 (MT assumes the article, a]a ; cp Vg. quasi agnos}. Apparently there was an ancient clan called Telem, with which name the real or assumed personal names TELEM (^p), TALMON (paSa), and even TALMAI (sSn) should undoubtedly be grouped, and the importance of which may be estimated from the fact that 'Talmai' stands beside 'Sheshai' and 'Ahiman' (corruptions probably of 'Cushi' and 'Jerahmeel') as representing the primitive population of Kirjath-arba (rather K.- arab), otherwise called Hebron (rather Rehoboth). Observe too that 'Talmon' occurs in 1 Ch. 9:17 beside 'Ahiman' (Jerahmeel) as the name of a family of sho'arim ( EV 'porters'), or rather ashshurim 1 (Asshurites), and that niVi 3 (Bealoth), beside which nVa (Telem) occurs in Josh. 15:24, is probably miswritten for the ancient clan-name Tubal (see TUBAL-CAIN).

1 See Amer. Jour, of Theol, July 1901, p. 439.

2 It is also possible, however, that TaAaAots [galalois] is a very early alteration of Te^e/m [techem], the better known place being substituted for the more obscure.

The place called Telam must have been situated not very far from the jm or wady which separated the Judahite from the Amalekite territory. For the first movement of Saul was towards the cities (v . 5 : LXX{BL} ws T&V TroXeco! [eoos toon poleoon]) of Amalek on the other side (read QjTi) of the wady (v. 5). Possibly there was near it a place called Gilgal (a popular corruption of Jerahmeel), for LXX{BAL} in 1 S. 15:4 gives 'in Gilgal' (fv TaVyctAots [en galgalois]) instead of 'in Telam'. 2 We can hardly venture to go further, and suppose that Telam was regarded as itself the boundary between Judahite and Amalekite land. This supposition has indeed actually been made, and the text of 1 S. 15:7 (MT ,-rriro) and 27:8 (MT c^iyo) been emended accordingly. 1 This, however, implies inadequate criticism of the proper name n^ in (Havilah), and the same objection may be made to Winckler, when he emends nViriD in 15:7 into D^iyc. in accordance with 27:8. 2

A place called 'Olam is highly problematical, and a better way out of the critical difficulty ought to be found. As is pointed out elsewhere (see SHUR), nV iri) like nV^n in 1 S. 23:19, {3} is miswritten for 'Jerahmeel'.

In 1 S. 27:8 -yeAa/x [gelam] in yeAa^i//(o-)ovp [gelamps(s)our] of BA has been thought to represent Telam, which indeed a number of cursives attest. But T [t] may be a corruption of [" [G]. Klostermann ingeniously extracts "Kysn *7n:> 'the wady of BESOR' (q.v.). Cp Exp. T 10:239 [1899].

T. K. C.


(D^D; reAHM [B], reAAHM [KAL]), a door-keeper, Ezra 10:24. In 1 Esd. 9:25 TOLBANES (roAj3ai >]s [BA]). See TELEM, 1; and cp TALMON.


RV for Tel-haresha [Neh.] and Tel-harsa [Ezra] (NCnn Sn ; Ezra 0aapij<7a [B], 0eAap. [A], SeAaaprjo-o-a [L] ; Nell. apTJcra. [BN], fleAaptra [A], 0eAAapj;s [L] ; i Esd., THELERSAS [EV], SeAepo-as [B], SeAo-a? [A], 0aAaa [(cat p)cra] [L]).

A place from which, according to the great post-exilic list, came certain families of doubtful origin (Ezra 2:59 = Neh. 7:61 = 1 Esd. 5:36-37). The name in Hebrew might mean 'mound of the forest'; but hurshu (or hursu) in Assyrian means 'mountain-range', whence Friedrich Delitzsch 4 proposes to explain as if til hurshi, 'hill in the mountains'.

If, however, we adopt the theory (cp PROPHET, 27) that the Israelites who returned from exile came chiefly from the Jerahmeelite region in N. Arabia (including the Negeb) we shall have to seek for some other explanation. In this case, NwinWH almost certainly be miswritten for iflBX - i.e., Ashhur. In 1 Ch. 2:24 Ashhur is called the father of Tekoa, where Tekoa is probably not the modern Teku'a, 2 hrs. S. of Ben jamin, but some place farther south ; cp Jer. 6:1, where 'Tekoa' is mentioned with 'Beth-haccerem', or rather 'Beth-jerahmeel', and both places are near the land of Zaphon (pss), which apparently included Kadesh and the sacred mountain of Yahwe (see ZAPHON). On the possible identity of Tel-ashhur with the so called Telassar, see TEL-MELAH.

T. K. C.


(Pita ^Fl ; GepMeAeG [thermeleth] [B], GeA-MeAex [L]. MexeA [A]), a place from which, according to the great post-exilic list, came certain families which could not prove their Israelitish origin, Ezra 2:59 = Neh. 7:61 (GepMeAeG [N], 9eAM. [B], GeAMeAex [AL]) = 1 Esd. 5:36 (THERMELETH [EV] ; GepMeAeG [thermeleth] [A], GeAMeAep [thelmeleg] [L])- The name is generally supposed to be Babylonian, and since, in this case, the explanation 'hill of salt' is impossible, Friedrich Delitzsch (Calwer Bib.-Lex. (2) 901) would give the name as Til-malahi, 'sailors' hill, on the analogy of TEL-ABIB (q.v.).

If, however, we follow the analogy of the names rt^D K J or nSe.T N J, and nScn TJ? (see SALT, VALLEY OF, and SALT, CITY OF), Tel-melah will mean 'hill of Jerahmeel', and will become part of the evidence for the theory (cp PROPHET, 27) that the Israelitish exiles who returned came mainly from the region called Jerahmeelite in N. Arabia (including the Negeb). The names with which Tel-melah is grouped are Tel-harsha and Cherub-addan-immer or 'Cherub, Addan (Ezra) or Addon (Neh.), and Immer' (p3xi, Neh.). Two of these - viz., Cherub and Immer - at once become intelligible, if we may venture to set aside the prejudice of a Babylonian connection ; both are of the same type as numerous corruptions of 'Jerahmeel'. Addan or Addon, too, is very possibly N. Arabian, and in spite of the initial N ['] in Ezra-Neh., may be another form of py - i.e., the N. Arabian 'Eden', which is very possibly referred to

  • (1) in the story of Paradise (see PARADISE, 7), and
  • (2) in the otherwise enigmatical phrases 'Beth-eden' (Amos 1:5) and 'the b'ne Eden who were in Telassar' (2 K. 19:2 = Is. 37:12).

Probably we should read, for 'Cherub-addan-immer', 'Eden of Jerahmeel' ( jMSrlT pyX 'cherub' and 'immer' being variants for the fuller and truer form Jerahmeel. TEL-HARSHA (e.v.) probably = Tel-ashhur, and notice again the significant phrase 'the b'ne Eden who were in Telassar', where Telassar, the meaning of which is otherwise scarcely a soluble problem, is probably a corruption of Tel- or Tubal-ashhur. See TELASSAR (end).

T. K. C.

1 H. P. Smith accepts D^ a [TYLM] in 27:8, but not in 15:7 ; Driver holds himself in suspense. We., Bu., and Ki. read D^>ac, or O^BO, in both places. Lohr resists the temptation to change ; Klost. retains MT in 15:7, but strikes out a new path in 27:8.

2 Musri, 2 (MVG, 1898, 4), 6.

3 Glaser needlessly emends n/ lrt in 1 S. into fl7 3H

4 Heb. Lang. 16-17; Calwer Bib.-Lex. (2) 901 ('Waldhugel' can hardly be right ; cp Ass. HWB 293 b).


(NE E, and once NDF1 [Job 6:19] ; 6&IMAN [BKAQFL]), son of Ishmael [Gen. 25:15 0H- [L>E] ; 1 Ch. 1:30). The name appears as early as Jeremiah ( 25:23 ; 6e. [X c - a ] 0u/j.fav [N*]), also in a prophetic fragment on Arabia ('land of Tema', Is. 21:14). In both these passages it is associated with DEDAN (q.v. ). 1 In Job 6:19 the 'caravans of Tema' (6aifj.a.vti}v [thaimanoon]) are parallel to the 'companies of Sheba'. For its geographical position see ISHMAEL, 4 [6]. In the cuneiform inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. its people are spoken of as (alu) Te-mai - i.e., belonging to the city Tema'u (cp Schrader, KGF 261+; Del. Par. 301+). Its modern name is Taima. The explorations of Euting have brought to light some important Aramaic inscriptions, dating from before the Persian period, which testify to the existence of a highly developed culture among the ancient Arabs of Tema (see ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, 2).

Special mention is made in one of them of the KC rl n^K, 'the gods of Tema', one of the most important of whom bore the name cVs [TsLM] (CIS, 2:113, 2:114), cp yy oSs [TsLM ....] the name of one of his priests ( D^S [TsLM] saves, a name perhaps || to the biblical TiOJ S D) ; see Baeth. Beitr. 80 f., and cp ZALMUNNA.

1 Cp Gen. 25:3 LXX (0aifj.av [thaiman] [AD], 6t/j.. [E ; om. L], brother of Dedan).


(Plpri), the family name of a company of (post-exilic) Nethinim : Ezra 2:53 (fle^.a[a] [BAL], AV THAMAH) = Neh. 7:55 (rtfj-ad [emath] [BN], %ia [ A], 0f,xaa [L], AV TAMAH)= 1 Esd. 6:32 THOMUI, RV THOMEI (flo^i [B], 00/uei [A], 0<r/uaa [L]).


(iJp n. \! P" 1 [root YMN], 'what is on the right hand'? - i.e., 'south'; Oai^av [BADQL], occasionally fle^i. in KADEQ : Vg. Theman, except Ezek. 25:13 Hab. 3:3, Auster and Ob. 9 Merides; gentilic JO n, EV TEMANITE, in Job 22:1, en ; 0ai/xai<(e)iT>)S, or 6ffi. , occasionally Oai^ai iis, 0e^ai<i);, Ot^aviTi.? [A Job 15 ; cp 42:17d] ; Themanites).

Teman was originally the name of a clan and district (cp NAMES, 55) of Edom, no doubt one of the oldest and most important, and is genealogically described as the eldest son of Esau's first-born son Eliphaz (Gen. 36:11, 36:15 [da/Avav [thamnan] E], 1 Ch. 1:36). In Gen. 36:42 (1 Ch. 1:53) Teman is counted among the 'dukes' ('alluph), or clans ('eleph), of EDOM (q.v. 4), not, however, heading the list. In the list of ancient Edomite kings we find a king called 'Husham, of the land of the Temanites' (Gen. 36:34). In Ezek. 25:13 the prophet threatens destruction to Edora 'from Teman even to Dedan'. Later writers use 'Teman' as a poetical synonym for 'Edom' (Amos 1:12 [on date, see AMOS, 9], Ob. 9 [cp. Jer. 49:22], Jer. 49:20, Hab. 3:3, Bar. 3:22-23); but in Jer. 49:7 we seem to find Teman recognised as the name of a district. 'Is wisdom no more in Teman?' must be taken in connection with the description of the oldest of Job's friends as 'the Temanite' (Job 2:11 etc.). 'Eliphaz the Edomite' would have been an insufficient description ; 'Temanite' must refer to the district best known for proverbial wisdom. As to the locality intended by Teman, Ezek. 25:13 (already quoted) entitles us to assume that Teman was in the N. (NE. ), for the land of Dedan was certainly to the S. (SE. ) of the land of Edom. (This suggests a comparison of the name with Jamin = Jerahmeel. ) See Amos 1:12, where Bozrah is mentioned as the capital of Teman. Bozrah being situated in the district of Gebal (Ps. 83:8), northward from Petra, we may perhaps venture to regard the district of Teman as having much the same limits as the later district of Gebal {1}: in spite of the fact that Teman and Bozrah in Amos 1:12 are the names, not merely of a district and its chief town, but of the land of Edom and its capital.

Cp Kautzsch. in Riehm, HWB (2), 1648 ; Buhl, Edomiter, 30-31; Lury, Edomiter, 26. Trumbull (Kadesh-barnea, 117+) takes a different view: Teman 'was probably the portion of Edom which lay directly S. or Teman-ward, of Canaan'. Trumbull even finds a trace of the old name in the Nakb ('pass') el-yemen, which goes northward from Wady Fikreh 'over against ancient Teman'; and in Josh, 15:1 he would render the closing words JO n nsj3O (RV 'at the uttermost part of the south') 'from the extremity of Teman' (so, too, the pioneer British critic Geddes). Greene too (Heb. Migration, 145) regards Teman as the southern part of Kclom, now known as esh-shera, as distinguished from the northern (Gebalene), and including the Idumaean range as far N. as Mt. Hor. According to Eus. and Jer. (OS 260:96; 155:32), Thaiman was the name of a village distant 15 (Jer. says, 5) R. mi. from Petra, and the seat of a garrison.

T. K. C.

1 GEBAL (q.v.) is a late name of Arabic origin.


(VWR [Baer], ^"Fl [Gi.], and ^D J-I ; cp TEMAN), son of ASHUR, of the tribe of Judah; 1 Ch. 4:6 (Bai^av [BA], -i/ei [L]). Probably miswritten for 3Cn, Timni, the gentilic of Timnah. See TIMNAH i.

T. K. C.



    • Meaning (1).
    • Oldest Israelite temples (2).
    • Solomon's temple
      • David's preparations (3).
      • Solomons motives (4).
      • Site of temple (5).
      • The main buildings (6).
        • Internal arrangements (7)
        • The holy place (8).
        • Ornamentation and decoration (9).
        • Roof (10).
        • Side-buildings (11).
        • The pillars of bronze (12).
        • Forecourt and gates (13).
      • Equipment
        • The ark (14).
        • The brazen serpent (15).
        • Table of shewbread (16).
        • The candlesticks (17).
        • The altar of bronze (18).
        • The brazen sea and lavers (19).
      • Meaning and origin of temple plan (20).
      • History of Solomon's temple (21).
    • Ezekiel's temple (22).
    • Zerubbabel's temple (23).
      • Measurements, etc. (24).
      • Internal arrangements (25).
      • A priestly temple (26).
      • History of second temple (27).
    • The temple of Herod (28).
      • Herod's motives (29).
      • Plan of temple (30).
        • The courts and gates (31).
        • The chambers (32).
        • Internal arrangements (33).
    • Introductory (34).
    • Officers, etc. (35).
    • Functions of priests and Levites (36).
    • The temple services
      • The daily offering ( 37).
      • The preliminaries (38).
      • The prayers and blessings (39).
      • The offering of incense (40).
      • The musical service (41).
      • The Sabbath and festivals (42).
  • Bibliography (43).


1. Meaning.[edit]

For the ancient Israelites, as for the ancient Semites in general, a 'temple' was the abode of a deity - a beth-el (*?x rra) - in the strictest meaning of the word, and not solely in the sense in which we also speak of Christian places of worship as houses of God. A temple in antiquity was not, in the first instance, a place of meeting for the worshippers of the deity; many ancient temples were accessible to none but the priests, and the altar - the place of worship in the fullest sense of the expression - was usually situated, not within, but without the building known as the temple. The temple, rightly considered, is the dwelling-house of the deity to whom it is consecrated, and whose presence is denoted by a statue, it may be, or some other sacred symbol. The erection of temples, accordingly, can always be regarded as already indicating advanced development of the religion concerned. For the temple is never the original dwelling-place of the deity. In the most primitive phase of religion, and particularly in the case of the oldest forms of Semitic religion, the deity was found, in the first instance, in certain natural objects and features which impressed the primitive worshipper (see NATURE-WORSHIP) ; high mountains, rocks of peculiar formation, wide-spreading trees, shady groves, springs of water and the like were regarded as seats of deity and places where his servants could meet with him, and bring him their gifts, though temple building of any sort there was none. Such natural objects, where human intervention and labour were unnecessary, are everywhere older than images and suchlike accessories. In the primitive Hebrew worship, in particular, temples played but a subordinate part. Ordinarily they were wholly superfluous. Sacrifice was offered under the open sky. The natural objects which were regarded as seats of deity required no protecting covering. 1 Often they had no need of an altar even; the sacred rock was itself an altar ; cp Gen. 28, where Jacob anoints - that is, presents his offering of oil upon - the stone which sheltered the deity. At the sacred springs, wells, and caves the gifts of the worshippers are simply dropped in, as, e.g. , the well of Zemzem at Mecca (cp ALTAR, NATURE-WORSHIP).

2. Oldest Israelite temples.[edit]

The situation changed as soon as men began to make images of the deity. Wherever such an image had come into existence, there naturally arose also the need for a house to shelter it. In the case of a costly image, too, theft had to be guarded against (cp Judg. 17-18); someone was required to watch and tend it; but here again we observe that, in principle and to begin with, nothing more is required than some simple housing, such as the worshipper is ordinarily in the way of constructing for himself. A modest apartment in the family dwelling-house sufficed, as the story of Micah's graven image shows (Judg. 17). Here again it is not a place of worship - a meeting-house for worshippers - that has to be provided, but simply a dwelling-place for the image, or, if you will, for the deity. Still less was any spacious apartment or stately palace required, because according to the ancient Hebrew conception the deity chose rather to have his dwelling in [thick] darkness. Even in Solomon's temple the apartment occupied by the deity, the so-called Holy of Holies, was quite small, plain and dark (see below, 7 end).

In accordance with this is the fact that in the OT we read of temples only where there is an ephod. Micah had a house for his ephod (Judg. 17:5) ; at Dan this same ephod afterwards had a temple, as doubtless also had Gideon s ephod at Ophrah (Judg. 18:8, 18:24+). Similarly, at Nob there was a great temple with a numerous priesthood in connection with the famous oracular image there (1 S. 21). The sacred ark, the most sacred object in Israel, stands in this respect in the same category with the image as representing the deity. It, too, naturally requires to be housed; it cannot be left simply in the open. The house assigned to it was the same in kind as those its worshippers lived in. As long as these lived in tents, the ark also remained in a tent. After the settlement in Canaan, it received a house of stone at Shiloh. But even then it was not absolutely necessary that it should have a house of its own, entirely to itself. After the temple at Shiloh had been destroyed, no one for a long time thought of getting a new house built for the ark. After it had been brought back from Philistia it wandered about from place to place, finding a temporary resting-place now in the house of a prominent citizen, now in that of a royal official, until at last within the precints of David's palace it found shelter merely in a simple tent (see ARK OF THE COVENANT).

We know nothing in detail as to the arrangement of the oldest Israelite temples. We can only conjecture that they were built on the same model as those of the Canaanites, for here also the conquered were doubtless the teachers of the conquerors. The Canaanites at that period already had large temples of their own. The temple of El-Berith at Shechem was, we know, the place of refuge of the Shechemites in times of danger, and must therefore have been large and strongly built (Judg. 9:46-47). At Gaza there was a great temple with a hall, the roof of which was supported by two pillars (Judg. 16:29). Here, too, it need hardly be pointed out, the fundamental idea was the same; the principal thing was the sanctuary, the apartment for the image or other sacred object; in connection with this there ultimately arose also another apartment or hall to which the worshippers of the god had access, and in which they had audience of him.

1 The ka'ba of Mecca, even, is no beth-el (house of God), 'household god', no covering for the black stone worshipped there. The stone in question is, in fact, visible from without, let into the wall, and the entire ka'ba is merely an expansion of the stone ; cp Wellh. Heid. (1) 3, 69, (2) 73.

Solomon's temple.[edit]

3. David's preparations.[edit]

In what sense Solomon s temple can be spoken of as something new, may easily be judged from what has already been said. In their general arrangement and details temple and palace were alike wonders to Solomon's subjects, such as had never been seen before; but the conception of a temple of Yahwe was not in itself any novelty. Tradition assigns the original idea to David; according to our present books of Samuel, it was David who first thought of building a temple for the ark, inasmuch as it seemed unbefitting that he himself should be dwelling in a palace whilst the ark of Yahwe remained in a mere tent. Yahwe, however, the narrative goes on to say, would not suffer this. Not David was to build a house for Yahwe, but Yahwe was to build a house for David, by assuring the permanence of David's dynasty (2 S. 7). The Chronicler develops the idea further : David himself indeed cannot build the temple, but he can make everything ready for it ; and this he does in such a manner that little is left for Solomon to do. The latter receives from David plans and models for this temple and all its furniture ; the stone and timber are all hewn and prepared, the workmen engaged and trained, the gold and silver collected, the whole temple service organised (1 Ch. 22+). All this, however, belongs to the latest strata of the narrative. There is no historical probability that David had thoughts of building a temple. Had it been otherwise, it is not easy to see what should have prevented him from carrying out the idea. But the conditions under which such a purpose might be formed were absent. When David was building his palace he had no need for a splendid sanctuary also in his citadel. The ark, of course, he wanted to have there ; but the genuine old Israelite idea was that in view of its origin and significance the appropriate lodging for the ark was in a tent. This comes out quite clearly still in the words of Nathan when he asks (2 S. 7:5-6, cp 1 Ch. 17:6):

'Has Yahwe ever spoken a word to any of the judges of Israel saying, Why have ye not built me a house of cedar?
'I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day'.

Such was the normal order of things. It is easy to understand, however, how after the temple of Jerusalem had acquired its importance, the people of a later time found it difficult to understand wherefore the pious David had not built the temple. The cause cannot have lain, for him, in religious indifference ; and it was necessary to find another explanation. Hence the whole theory now before us.

4. Solomon's motives.[edit]

In Solomon's case again we need not seek too exclusively for purely religious motives. It was by no means his intention, as tradition represents it to have been, to provide the Israelites with one solitary sanctuary, legitimate and central, and so to bring to an end the worship of the high places, and such-like practices. His motives were more political than religious. He was a splendour-loving prince to whom the old palace of David no longer seemed good enough, and who wished to have a new and magnificent residence similar to those of neighbouring sovereigns. In his complex of new buildings a fine house of cedar for the venerable and sacred ark was also included, since a simple tent seemed no longer to suffice for a royal sanctuary. It was a citadel-sanctuary for himself, not a temple for Israel that he built.

Only thus can we understand the mistrust and even antipathy with which large masses of the people regarded the work of Solomon. The citizens of the northern kingdom still adhered to the ancient sanctuaries and went on making pilgrimages to Beersheba and Gilgal, to Dan and Bethel, the places where their fathers of old had paid their devotions. In the southern kingdom, too, the 'innovation' was far from finding unanimous approval. Ultimately, indeed (in Deuteronomy), the prophets came to recognise the temple as the lesser evil when compared with the worship of the high places. Yet, at the bottom of their hearts they put it on a level with the other sanctuaries of Samaria or Shiloh (Jer. 7:12, Mic. 15). In fact, in religious circles the luxury of the temple of Solomon came under very severe censure as out of keeping with the true Israelite character (cp the law concerning the altar in the Book of the Covenant). To lift a tool upon an altar stone is to pollute it ; so also to go up to it by steps is a desecration (Ex. 20:24). A more pointed condemnation of the altar of Solomon, which was raised high after the fashion of heathen altars and covered with brass, can hardly be conceived (Cp 2 K. 16:10+).

5. Site of the temple.[edit]

On the site of Solomon s temple cp PALACE, JERUSALEM, 19. We may regard it as settled that it stood on the eastern hill. The architectural history of the place shows that a sanctuary always stood there, within the limits of the present Haram. The temple of Jupiter built there by Hadrian stood, as we have reason to believe, upon the site of the temple of Herod, which in its turn was only a reconstruction of the second (post- exilic) temple, and this again, of course, can only have been raised on the site of that of Solomon. It is only as regards the particular spot within the Haram area that any dispute is at all possible. For example, Fergusson, Trupp, Lewin, W. R. Smith and others, have placed it in the south-western angle of the modern Haram. This is, however, in view of the lie of the ground, quite impossible. The south-western angle of the Haram, when strictly considered, lies not upon the eastern but upon the edge of the western hill. The temple, in that case, must be held to have stood on the steep slope of the hill towards the Tyropoi on valley, entirely on artificial substructions. In fact, the southern half of the place cannot be thought of in this connection at all, for the site did not receive its great extension southwards until the time of Herod (see below, 30).

W. R. Smith (EB(9), s.v. 'Temple') also starts from the assumption that the whole Herodian temple-complex lay in the SW. of the present Haram. Now it is indisputable that the S. wall and the southern portion of the western wall of the Haram are precisely those parts of the wall the external features of which betray a Herodian origin. Smith s contention, further, that the dimensions of the Herodian temple as given by Josephus, entirely exclude the sacred rock from the temple limits can hardly be maintained, as will presently be shown. Moreover, apart from any other consideration, his argument fails in view of the lie of the ground, as can very well be seen from his own map : between the SW. corner and the NW. corner of his temple area there is a difference of level of soft.; between the SW. and NK. corner of his temple court, a similar difference of 90 ft. In other words : his temple stands entirely on the steep south-western slope of the hill, and numerous sub structions would have been necessary in order to secure even the small area that was necessary ; no less improbable is it that the temple should have stood on a level so considerably below the summit of the hill with the sacred rock where there was a fine level plateau.

On the other hand, considerations suggested by the history of religion speak very strongly in favour of the site of the present dome of the rock. In the East, from the remotest antiquity down even to the present day, sacred sites have always maintained themselves with unyielding tenacity through all religious changes. Thus there is a high degree of probability that what is to-day regarded as the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in the mosque of Omar, the second holiest site in all Islam, should from the first have been a particularly sacred point. The rock is doubtless to be regarded as the scene of the angelic appearance in 2 S. 24, which marked the place as a site of a sanctuary of Yahwe (cp Judg. 6:11-12, 13:19). The statement of the Chronicler that Solomon built his temple here at the threshing-floor of Ornan, has every probability in its favour. That the sanctity of the place goes back to a still earlier time is not unlikely.

In this case there arises only the question as to the place more precisely where the temple stood with reference to this sacred rock. Several scholars (Rosen, Schick, and others) have supposed that the rock was in the Holy of Holies and that the ark stood upon it. This is also an old Christian and Mohammedan tradition ; that such a tradition was current among the Jews in NT times is evident from the Talmudic legend that in the Holy of Holies the place of the lost ark was taken by a stone called the 'foundation stone' (p^ .TrtC, Yoma 5:2). Further, this stone was identified with Jacob's stone at Bethel (cp Rashi on Gen. 26 and Breithaupt's notes). Both Mohammedans and Christians transferred these legends to the Sahra, which the former accordingly venerated as 'a gate of heaven' (Ibn 'Abd Rabbih', Ikd, 3;369). Mohammedan sources enable us to trace back this identification to the Moslem Jew Wahb ibn Monabbih, who enriched Islam with so many Jewish fables and died a century after Jerusalem was taken by the Arabs (Tabari 1:571-572; Ibn al-Fakih 97-98). Eutychius, on the other hand, who is the first Christian writer to apply the Jewish legend to the Moslem Sahra, avers that the tradition was communicated to Omar by the Christian patriarch Sophronius on the taking of Jerusalem, and guided the caliph in the choice of a site for his mosque. This identification, however, is impossible, were it only by reason of the dimensions of the rock which is about 59 ft. [17.7 metres] long, 51.75 ft. [15.5 metres] broad, with a height above ground of 4 ft. 1.25 in. to 6.5 ft. [1.25-2 metres]. The Holy of Holies, which was a cube of 20 cubits {1} was too small to contain it. 2 In other respects also the suggestion is attended with great difficulties on account of the conditions of space ; the altar of burnt-offering would have to be moved considerably to the E. of the rock, thus leaving very little room for the court which was to accom modate the worshippers - unless great substructions on the E. be assumed, which is inadmissible (see PALACE, 4).

In a word, there is everything in favour of, and nothing against, the theory that this rock was the site of Solomon's altar of burnt-offering (section 18). This would fit in with the view that it was here the angel stood at the theophany. Further, on the rock there has been discovered a channel which may perhaps have served to carry off the blood (cp also Ebers and Guthe, Palastina, 166). This channel was connected with a hollow under the stone. Further examination has not been hitherto permitted; but it is extremely probable that this hollow is really a cistern connected with the general system of conduits (cp CONDUITS, 3). If in accordance with what has been said we may regard this rock as being the site of Solomon's altar of burnt-offering, then the temple, properly so called, lay to the westward of this, and its site is determined with tolerable accuracy.

1 [It is assumed throughout this article that the longer cubit of 20.67 in. is meant; see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, i.]

2 The threshing-floor of Ornan cannot have been on the rock, which has an irregular, not level, surface.

6. The main buildings.[edit]

On the text of the description of Solomon's temple, cp what is said elsewhere with reference to the description of his PALACE, 2. In the present case, also, after the many later additions have been separated out, we arrive at no clear account. Much that would be of importance is wanting ; perhaps its disappearance is in some measure due to the frequent redactions. How manifold these were can be seen in the Commentaries (e.g. , Benzinger, Konige, 16-17). For a reconstruction of the buildings some help can be obtained from the description of Ezekiel's temple (40+). True, his temple is primarily a work of the imagination ; but, on the other hand, his description, broadly speaking, agrees with 1 K. 6. That, as a former priest, he was familiar with the first temple may be taken for granted ; there is also an a priori probability that in his description he would follow the lines of the old temple. Such changes as he does introduce are on the one hand occasioned by his desire for a scrupulous symmetry in the plan of his temple, and partly by his determination to remove the dwelling of the prince from the temple hill. The features that may be traced to the working of his free fantasy are in particular the specifications regarding the courts and the buildings contained in them. In matters where these points do not come into question we shall for the most part be safe in transferring his data without hesita tion to the earlier temple.

The temple-complex fell into two divisions - the main building, the 'house of God' properly so called, and the subsidiary buildings by which it was surrounded. The main building was a rectangular structure 60 cubits in length, 20 cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in height, corresponding, on the basis of the qubit of 20.7 inches, in round numbers to 104, 35, and 52 feet respectively. It lay E. and W. , with entrance from the E. The measurements given above are, as appears from the description of the debir (1 K. 6:16a, cp v. 20), and as is confirmed by Ezekiel's account, the internal dimensions.

On this assumption, indeed, we must suppose that either the total length (60 cubits) or one or other of the detailed figures for the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies is incorrectly given, as the dividing wall between the two must of course have taken up some space. The thickness of the walls is given by Ezekiel (41:15) as 6 cubits, a measure that may also be taken as applying to the old walls. At all events the walls, to begin with, were of considerable thickness as appears from the circumstance that for the second and third stories successively they were made thinner by rebatements of half a cubit, or it may be of a whole cubit (but see below, 11).

Before the hekal (Srn), the Holy Place, eastward, stood a porch. Its length was the same as the breadth of the house (20 cubits) and it was 10 cubits in depth ; but its height is nowhere given either in Kings or in Ezekiel. The parallel place in Chronicles (2 Ch. 3:4) mentions 120 cubits, which is a sheer impossibility. The text is hopelessly corrupt ; the 20 cubits of LXX{A}, Pesh. , and Arab, are incorrect as appears from the data as to the height of the pillars (see below, 12) ; these can hardly have been taller than the porch. Our most natural course will be to suppose for the porch a height equal to that of the temple itself, viz. 30 cubits. Perrot and Chipiez, and others with them, have sought to justify the 120 cubits in Chronicles by suggesting that the porch was similar to the pylons of the Egyptian temples ; but neither the word 'ulam (D^X) nor yet the other measurements would be appropriate to a gateway of this sort. In Ezekiel's temple one ascended to the porch by ten steps. This, we may take it, will have been in agreement with the actual facts.

7. Internal arrangements.[edit]

[picture of FIG. 1. - Ground-plan of the Temple. goes here]

The internal space was divided, as already said, into two apartments, the larger in front and the smaller behind. The wall which separated them has, in Ezekiel's temple, a thickness of two cubits. From the description of the door it is clear that in Solomon's temple also the partition consisted of a solid wall, not of a curtain merely. 1 The door was made of olive wood and was pentagonal - i.e., the lintel was not horizontal but formed an angle as Thenius rightly explains, 1 K. 6:31 (cp St. ZATW 3:148). 2 In Ezekiel's temple a breadth of 6 cubits is given to this door (Ezek. 41:2); whether this figure is applicable to Solomon's temple also we have no materials for determining. All that we learn further about it from our present texts is that it was a folding door, was decorated with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, and overlaid with gold. This notice, however (1 K. 6:32), does not belong to the old architectural description. If the walls of the hekal and of the debir were unprovided with carvings, we can hardly suppose that the doors were otherwise treated ; and as for the overlaying, we learn from 2 K. 18:16 that it was Hezekiah who first overlaid the temple doors with gold.

The inner apartment (debir) was lower than the main building - being only 20 cubits in height. It thus formed a perfect cube, 20 cubits in the side. As we can hardly picture to ourselves the Holy of Holies as being merely a sort of low annex to the temple, we must suppose that above it there was an upper chamber of 10 cubits in height, and that thus the temple roof had a uniform height of 30 cubits from the ground. From 1 K. 8:12-13 (see Kenz. ad loc. ) we may venture to infer that the inner room was perfectly dark. This adytum, called later the Holy of Holies, was the most essential part of the temple. It was the dwelling-place proper of the deity, whose presence here was represented by the sacred ark.

The walls of the debir were panelled with cedar ; the floor was of cypress wood. According to the present text the walls were also overlaid with gold (1 K. 6;20); this, however, is a later addition to the text (see below).

1 According to 2 Ch. 3:14 there was a curtain before the entrance to the debir. This would not be improbable in itself ; but there is no mention of it in the old description of the temple in Kings. Thenius, Riehm, and others indeed have found a curtain in 1 K. 6:21 : 'he drew [the curtain] across with chains of gold', etc.; but if these words belong to the original text they must relate to the altar ; cp Benz. ad loc.

2 The other interpretation (Ges., Bahr, Keil, and others) explains the JV:Cn of 1 K. 6:31 as meaning that the area of the door was a fifth of the entire superficial area of the wall. So also Klostermann with emendation : the lintel was a fifth - i.e., of the transverse wall, which is equivalent to saying that the breadth of the doorway was a fifth of that of the house, - in other words 4 cubits. Both explanations are very forced. JVB Crl stands in contrast with nijD^, 'square', in 1 K. 6:23, 7:5.

8. The Holy Place.[edit]

The anterior apartment, the hekal, afterwards known as the Holy Place, was, as already mentioned, 40 cubits long, 20 broad and 30 high. It also was floored with cypress and panelled with cedar, so that of the mason work nothing was visible. Here again the statements as to the walls having been overlaid with gold (1 K. 6:21, 6:22a, 6:30) are quite late additions to the text (see below, 9). This apartment also was not particularly well lighted. Since the building that surrounded the house was 15 cubits in height and the debir had probably no window at all, we must suppose that such windows as the apartment had were situated above the 20 cubit level of the debir. We must further take into account the thickness of the walls which was such that even if the windows were made so as to widen inwards after the manner of embrasures (cp 1 K. 6:4 RVmg), they could not have admitted much light. Add to this that they were provided with wooden lattices like the windows of dwelling-houses generally ; so at least we are to interpret the expression atumim (o sax; cp Benz. on 1 K. 6:4). We learn further that the windows were casement windows - furnished, that is to say, with wooden frames and not mere openings in the stone wall, a refinement which was unknown in ordinary dwelling-houses. Also the doorway leading to the anterior room was provided with posts of olive-wood, and, in contrast to that leading to the Holy of Holies (see above), was rectangular in shape. The door was of cypress and either half consisted of two folding leaves which were so connected in some way with each other, by means of double hinges or charnieres, that in entering one did not requre to open the whole door, but only the two inner leaves. 1 The width of the doorway is not stated; in Ezekiel's temple it was 10 cubits (Ezek. 41:2). Here also are repeated the statements as to overlaying with gold (1 K. 6:35). More particularly it is here stated that the covering of gold was fitted exactly on to the engraved design (nprorrty ntP p). Thus the decorative work in question did not consist of figures carved in relief (Reliefschnitzereien), but of figures outlined on the flat (Konturenzeichnungen).

9. Ornamentation and decoration.[edit]

Stade (ZATW 3:140+) has shown that the various statements as to the overlaying of the walls of the debir (1 K. 6:20), of the walls of the hekal (vv. 21, 22a, 30), and of the altar in the hekal (v. 22b), with gold are all very late additions to the text. From the point of view of literary criticism they can be shown to be such by the circumstance that they come in at the wrong place and moreover that, in part at least, they are absent from LXX. Besides, their incorrectness in point of fact appears from certain other data of the OT.

On the occasions when the temple is despoiled, the foreign foes and King Ahaz when in financial straits take everything of value, but the covering of gold is not mentioned, though this certainly would not have been left untouched had it existed (1 K 14:26, 2 K. 14:14, 16:17). On the other hand we are told of Hezekiah that he overlaid the doors and doorposts of the hekal; but it was not with gold (2 K. 18:16). Moreover, strictly speaking a covering of gold must be regarded as incompatible with the carving on the walls. The whole is taken from the description of the Tabernacle with its wealth of gold and transferred to the temple of the wealthy king, which, it was thought, was certainly not less costly (see Benz. on 1 K. 6:20).

That the temple walls were adorned with carvings is more credible. In Ezekiel's temple (41:17-18) we read that the whole wall was in like manner decorated with carved cherubim and palms, a palm between two cherubs. Here, however, great suspicion cannot but be aroused by the fact that the relative notice (1 K. 6:18) is wanting in LXX, that the verse disturbs the connection in the most violent way, and that with its statement that 'all was of cedar' it is inconsistent with what has been said in 1 K. 6:15. Nevertheless, there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the temple walls were at a later date decorated with carvings (as we are led to infer from Ezekiel). Elsewhere, also, we read of later adornments of the temple (2 K. 12:8+, 12:29, 16:10+, 23:4, 23:11-12). Thus we may safely regard the carvings as having been the work of a later king.

1 Ewald, Keil, and others think of the doors as horizontally divided each into an upper and a lower half, of which only the lower had to be opened on entering. Against this cp Thenius on 1 K. 6:34.

10. Roof.[edit]

We are not told anything as to the construction of the roof of the building. Many scholars, such as Lund ( see Die alt.-jud. Heiligthumer}, Hirt (see Der Tempel Salomos), Schnaase (Gesch. d, bildenden Kunste, 1 ; 1843), take it to have been gabled ; but according to 2 K. 23:12, 2 Ch. 3:9 this cannot have been the case ; the roof was flat. It is highly probable that, as in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon (see PALACE), it was made of beams and planks of cedar. Upon this we may suppose to have been laid, for protection against the weather, a coating of clay, according to ancient custom, or perhaps even slabs of stone. The usual railing or battlement ran round it (cp Dt. 228). We must assume some sort of subsidiary arrangement for the support of the beams, since cedar beams of the length specified must have bent if unpropped. The text says nothing of this ; but in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon, where the span was much less (only 12.5 cubits, about 21.5 ft. ), we hear of struts (lit. shoulder-pieces 1 K. 7:2-3 LXX, see Benz. ad loc. and PALACE, 5, with illust. ) on the pillars which served as supports for the beams of the roof. We must think of similar supports projecting from the walls in the case of the temple building.

11. Side-buildings.[edit]

[picture of FIG. 2. - Section of the Temple. goes here]

The main building was surrounded on three sides (N. , W. , and S. ) by a side building, or yatsua (yw\ AV 'chamber', RV 'story') in three stories containing 'side chambers', tsela'oth (nilSs AV 'chambers'; cp Ezek 41:5-6). The under story was 5 cubits broad, the middle one 6 cubits, and the upper 7. The increasing width seems to have been obtained by narrowing the temple wall, which diminished in thickness by successive steps or rebatements on the outside (1 K. 6:6 RV). Thus the cedar beams which formed the floors (and the roofs) of the side chambers were not built into the temple wall but rested upon the rebatement (cp fig. 2).

Stade has conjectured - what is not at all improbable - that this was also the case with the exterior wall of the side-building. In that case the differential breadth of i cubit falls to be divided between the two walls ; the thickness of the temple wall therefore diminished with each story by only half a cubit, which is much the more probable view. On this basis we shall have to suppose that the temple wall at the base of the middle story was still 5.5 cubits thick, at the base of the upper story 5 cubits, and above the upper story 4 cubits thick (see fig. 2). The thickness of the external walls of this subsidiary building is not given in i K. Ezekiel gives it as 5 cubits, and this will doubtless have been the old measurement (Ezek. 41:9).

The height of each story from floor to ceiling was 5 cubits (1 K. 6:10), and thus the height of the whole structure over 15 cubits (3x5 cubits, plus the thickness of floors and roof). The number of the side chambers is not stated in Kings, but in Ezekiel it is given as 30 (or 33) for each story (cp Cornill and Bertholet on Ezek. 41:6). Thus they were very small ; but this need not cause us any difficulty, as they were not used as living-rooms but only for storage of temple furniture and the like. We are left entirely without information as to the windows of the side building. On the other hand, with regard to the only door we learn that it was on the S. side (1 K. 6:8). The passage from one story to another was by means of steps, or more probably ladders, through openings in the roof (1 K. 6:8). 1 That the several chambers of a story communicated with each other by means of doors may be taken for granted.

1 Lulim, D^h> is usually rendered as meaning a winding staircase. For this rendering reliance is chiefly placed on LXX (eAiKTi) aya/Sao-is [elikte anabasis]). This, however, is not a translation of D ,17 [lulim] but proceeds upon another reading (Benz. ad loc.). In buildings of the ancient E. no trace of winding staircases has anywhere been found, and it is therefore very improbable that they are mentioned here. Levy (NHWB) points out that the openings in the roofs of the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were let down (see below, 33) are called J 7l7 [lulin] (cp Middoth, 4:5). Thus, as Stade has rendered probable, we shall most likely have to think of openings provided with trap-doors and reached by ladders or trap-stairs.

12. The pillars of bronze.[edit]

[picture of FIG. 3. - Coin representing temple at Paphos. goes here]

In front of the porch of the temple stood at the entrance two bronze pillars cast by Huram-Abi, a Tyrian artificer (see HIRAM 2) ; for further details see below, also JACHIN AND BOAZ. We are told that Jakin was the one on the right - i.e. S. - Boaz that to the left or N. ; but what the names mean we do not know. Their precise position is a much disputed point. Many scholars, including Nowack (HA 2:33-34), hold that they were engaged in the portal of the porch itself and that the lintel rested upon them. For this view reliance is placed mainly on Ezek. 40:49, where two columns to right and left of the entrance are mentioned over and above the pillars of the porch. This evidence, however, is not conclusive. To begin with, the very circumstance that Ezekiel does not give the columns the names handed down by tradition is in itself noticeable. It is very questionable, too, whether Ezekiel has these columns in his mind at all, and whether he has not rather dropped them altogether as he has done in the case of the brazen sea and the lavers. In LXX (1 K. 7:45) is preserved the information that there were yet other pillars in the temple ; these cannot well have stood anywhere else than in the porch where those of Ezekiel also are found ; or, if we are to identify the latter with Jachin and Boaz, it still remains very possible that he deliberately not only suppresses their names but also assigns to them a quite different place which deprives them of all special significance. Some special significance they must certainly have had originally; the mere fact of their having special names would be enough to prove this: there would be no point in it if they were architectural ornaments merely. Nor is it possible to assign to them a structural value as supporting the roof, for it is certain that they did not stand in the inside. There is to be considered also the further circumstance that there were quite analogous pillars in other Semitic temples as well. In temples of Baal they are quite usual; the sanctuary of Melkarth at Tyre for example had two costly pillars in which Melkarth was worshipped (Herod. 2:44). The annexed figure, representing the temple at Paphos on a coin, exhibits the two pillars standing wholly detached to the right and left of the entrance. In front of the temple at Heirapolis, also, were similar pillars (WRS, Rel. Sem. (2) 208, 488). Since the temple of Solomon was assuredly affected by Syro-phoenician influences it is natural to conjecture that in it Jachin and Boaz had a significance analogous to that of the other pillars just alluded to; namely, that they were symbols of the deity. In that case their origin will have to be sought in the ancient masseboth which used to be customary objects in all Semitic sanctuaries, including those of ancient Israel (see MASSEBAH ; also Benz. HA 379-380; WRS, Rel. Sem. (2) 191, n. i).

This is not equivalent to saying that as late as Solomon s time these pillars were still regarded as symbols of Yahwe ; we can equally well suppose that they were set up in accordance with an ancient custom no longer understood, or simply in imitation of Phoenician models. If the view just taken be correct, it becomes easy to understand why Ezekiel should have ignored them, or have sought to disguise their original meaning by reducing them to mere supports of the roof. And if so it also becomes highly probable that the Chronicler is right in assigning them a position in front of the temple (^D nn SB^ ^ )- It would not be easy to guess how he could have come to place them so unless he had some old source to go upon, for the meaning of the pillars offered above was certainly unknown to him.

[picture of FIG. 4. - Glass bowl with representation of Temple. goes here]

The view that they occupied detached positions in front of the temple is confirmed by the interesting representation of the Jewish temple found upon a glass bowl of the third or fourth century A. D. which shows two quite detached pillars near the entrance. The detailed description of the pillars has been preserved in a threefold form (1 K. 7:15-22, 7:41-42, 2 Ch. 3:15-17, Jer. 52:21-23, 2 K. 25:17), in accordance with which Thenius was able to restore the text of the account with considerable accuracy. Each of the pillars was 18 cubits (about 30 ft) in height, and 12 cubits (LXX wrongly 14 cubits) in circumference. They were hollow, the brass being 4 inger-breadths in thickness. Each was surmounted by a molten chapiter, or capital, 5 cubits in height. The capitals were covered with bronze net-work which was surrounded by two rows of pomegranates. The one questionable datum is that of 1 K. 7:19 where the meaning can be either that the capitals were curved outwards at the top after the fashion of lilies (as is also said, for example, of the brazen sea), or that above the capitals there were lily-shaped additions (cp Benz. on 1 K. 7:15).

[picture of FIG. 5 - Brazen pillars. goes here]

13. Court and gates.[edit]

The temple was surrounded by a court, called the 'inner' court, as distinguished from the great court enclosing the entire citadel. This inner court was surrounded by a wall of three courses of hewn stone surmounted by a course of cedar beams (1 K. 6:36). As to the dimensions of the court, its entrances, or any other architectural details the description in 1 K. says nothing. The measurements in Ezekiel (100x100 cubits) are not to be transferred to the old temple, since with that prophet the court had quite a different function. He makes it accessible to the priests alone; whence the Chronicler actually describes it simply as the 'Court of the Priests' (D Jflsn isn ; 2 Ch. 49). In ancient times and down to Ezekiel's day everyone had free access to it ; it was a place of public assembly as we can see from such passages as Jer. 35:1+, 36:10, 2 K. 12:12. For the position it occupied in the complex of buildings, see PALACE, 3. In Jer. 36:10 it is quite rightly designated as the 'upper forecourt' as it was higher up than the great palace court. By the 'new gate' one went down from it to the king s house (Jer. 26:10, 36:10). This designation 'new gate' tells us that it must have been restored by some later king ; for of course there can be no question of an entirely new gate, such as had never stood there before ; there must always have been some way by which the king could pass northwards from his palace to the sanctuary. The same will hold good also of the upper gate which according to 2 K. 15:35 was built by Jotham ; here also we have to do merely with a restoration of an ancient gate. We may with consider able confidence seek for this gate on the upper, that is on the northern, side of the court, and thus identify it with Ezekiel's 'north gate' (8:3, 9:2) and with Jeremiah's 'upper gate of Benjamin' (20:2), since the road to Benjamin lay northward. If this N. gate is called the gate of the altar in Ezek. 8:15 we shall best explain the designation as referring to the fact that it was the people's usual way of access to the altar. Other expositors (such as Graf) think of 2 K. 16:14 where we are told that Ahaz set up the old altar on the N. side of the forecourt. This N. gate appears also in Ezekiel's temple as the chief entrance (46:9, 40:38+). Whether Solomon's temple had a third gate - to the E. - is not certain; but it is probable. Ezekiel's temple has one such gate which is opened only on Sabbath and feast days and reserved for the prince (Ezek. 46+). But in the old temple, where the royal palace stood immediately to the S. of the court, the king of course approached the sanctuary direct from his house. If, accordingly, the Chronicler (1 Ch. 9:18) speaks of a king's gate, there are only two possibilities ; either he means the S. gate and is to this extent aware of what the ancient conditions were, or he means the E. gate, in which case he is simply transferring without criticism to the older period the circumstances which existed in his own time. On the other hand, in Jer. 38:14 we read of a third entrance, and such a third gate can best be looked for on the E. side. The mention also of three 'keepers of the threshold' (2 K. 25:18, Jer. 52:24) points to the existence of three gates. We further learn of the temple court that it was already paved in the pre-exilic time (2 K. 16:17). So also that in the same period there were chambers in it. Jer. 35:4 mentions a 'chamber of the princes' (lishkath has-sarim, DHC-H nzv^) which was above a 'chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper of the threshold', and adjoined that of the 'sons of Hanan'. According to Jer. 36:10 Baruch read the book of the words of Jeremiah in the chamber of Gemariah, which was situated at the entry of the New Gate. Here we are doubtless to understand partly chainljers which served as lodging for various officials, partly store rooms for temple equipments. In the temple of Ezekiel a series of cells are provided for the priests on the N. and S. side of the court (Ezek. 40:44+, 42:1+).

14. The ark.[edit]

The sacred object par excellence in this royal seat of worship was the ark of Yahwe (see ARK) which had its place in the Adytum (THI debir), the dark inner chamber, and in the ancient view represented the presence of the deity. It is remarkable to find in the temple of Solomon this special significance of the ark weakened by the addition to it of two cherubim. These stand 10 cubits high, their wings each measure 5 cubits ; the wings stretching inwards touch one another in the middle of the house, those stretching outwards touch respectively the N. and S. walls of the debir. Their faces are turned towards the E. Beneath the wings that touched one another was the ark. On the form, origin, and meaning of these figures see CHERUB (cp also Benz. on 1 K. 6:30). What is of special interest to note here is that the cherubs are the bearers of Yahwe, the signs and witnesses of his presence (Ezek. 18:10, 18:19-20); it is on this account that we read of Yahwe as throned above the cherubim (Ps. 18:10 [18:11]), and the name Yahwe, the Lord of hosts, now receives the addition 'who sitteth upon the cherubim' (1 S. 4:4, 2 S. 6:2). In accordance with this the debir is regarded as an extension of the ark just as the Ka'ba at Mecca is an extension of the sacred stone (see above, section 1 end, n.).

15. The brazen serpent.[edit]

Another quite peculiar symbol of deity which had not its like at the other sanctuaries was the brazen serpent, Nehushtan. It stood in the temple - whether in the Holy of Holies or in the outer chamber we are not told. Down to Hezekiah's reformation incense was offered to it. On its origin and meaning, cp NEHUSHTAN. The absence from the accounts of the temple which have reached us of any reference to this, which a later age had learned to regard as an idolatrous object, is easily intelligible; and, besides, it is not to be assumed off-hand that this serpent had its place in the temple from the first.

16. Table of shewbread.[edit]

In the outer chamber of the hekal stood, in front of the entrance to the debir, the table of shewbread (1 K. 6:20). This was an altar of cedar wood which is not further described in the account of the temple in 1 K., but Ezekiel's description of the corresponding object will doubtless apply here.

According to this, it was 2 cubits in length and breadth and 3 in height ; doubtless, therefore, there were steps up to it. Further, it had, as was usual with altars, 'horns' - i.e., corner-pieces resembling horns (Ezek. 41:21). According to 1 K. 6:20-21, it was overlaid with gold; but to this statement will apply what has already been said of the corresponding statements elsewhere (9); it is a later addition. The table of Ezekiel is plain cedar. The use of the table is for offering the so-called shewbread (see SACRIFICE, 14, 34a). In order to be able to make out from Solomon's temple the existence of an altar of incense not otherwise mentioned, Keil and others will have it that this is the altar in question. A table of cedar, however, even if thinly plated with gold, would be useless for the purpose of burning incense. Moreover, the offering of shewbread indeed is attested from an early date 1 S. 2:1), but there is no evidence of any regular offering of incense such as would have demanded a special altar. In 1 K. 7:48 an altar of incense is mentioned along with the table for the shewbread ; but both this verse and that immediately following it are later additions to the account of the temple (see Benz. ad loc. ). In ch. 6 there is nothing of any such altar, which indeed makes its appearance only in later strata of P.

17. The candlesticks.[edit]

Similarly, it is only in a late appendix (1 K. 7:49) that the golden candlesticks said to have been made by Solomon are mentioned. When this is said it is not of course meant that there were no candlesticks at all in the temple. It is an ancient custom to keep a light or lamp constantly burning in dwellings; if at the present day in conversing with fellahin or bedouin of Palestine one says 'He sleeps in the dark', what is meant is that he is so poor that he cannot buy himself a drop of oil. The Hebrew expression that speaks of a man 's lamp as having gone out, meaning that he and his family have disappeared, is analogous (cp Jer. 25:10); see LAMP. This custom makes it probable that a light was also burnt in the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of Yahwe ; according to 1 S. 3:3 this was the case during the night at all events. From what has been said above (7-8) as to the lighting of the hekal it will also be apparent that the use of artificial light in the temple cannot have been out of place; we shall not err therefore if we suppose that Solomon caused lampstands to be made by Huram-Abi - of bronze, however, not of gold. The number 10, too, can hardly be right ; as the tabernacle had only one candlestick it would probably be nearer the truth to assume but one for the temple also. That there is no mention of the candlesticks in 2 K. 25:14-15, may be due to accident merely (cp Jer. 52:19, which verse, however, is regarded by Stade, in view of Ex. 25:29, as an interpolation ; see ZATW [1883] 3:173-174). Cp CANDLKSTJCK.

In 2 Ch. 4:8 mention is also made of ten tables, five on the S. and five on the N. side of the sanctuary. These are often explained (as for example by Keil) as having been intended for the shewbread, but certainly not correctly (see above, cp 2 Ch. 13:11, 29:13) ; they are rather to be placed in the same category as the ten candlesticks (see Bertheau on 2 Ch. 4:19).

To the temple service also pertained of course a variety of minor furnishings, such as knives, forks, dishes, and the like. In 1 K. 7:48+ these are introduced by a later hand and represented as having been of gold. In the original description they were either passed over without mention, or they have been removed from it to make room for this later notice.

18. The bronze altar.[edit]

In the forecourt, due E. from the temple entrance, stood the great altar of burnt offering. In our present text this is left wholly undescribed. But that a descrption of it once stood in this place, and that Solomon caused an altar of bronze to be made by the same Tyrian artificer who cast the other pieces, are facts attested by 1 K. 8:64, cp 2 K. 16:10+. A later redactor stumbled at this, for in his view there already existed in connection with the tabernacle an altar which was now transferred to the temple. Here also we may, generally speaking, suppose Phoenician influences to have been at work. The mere fact that the altar was of bronze shows this, for in old Israelite practice altars were made of earth or unhewn stone : cp the law of the altar as laid down in Ex. 20:24+. In 2 Ch. 4:1 some additional data are given as to the size of this altar ; it is represented as having been 10 cubits in height and 20 in length and breadth. These are the measurements of Ezekiel's altar, and may safely be presumed to have been taken from the ancient altar, which in other respects also must have been the prototype of that of Ezekiel. The dimensions given (20x20 cubits) will therefore apply to the area of the base, from which the altar rose in three successive stages each diminishing by 2 cubits ; the lowest was 2 cubits and each of the other two was 4 in height. The actual hearth was 12 cubits square, and it was reached by means of steps. Cp further ALTAR.

To the service of the altar belonged a variety of utensils which were also cast by Huram-Abi. See Benzinger on 1 K. 7:40, 7:45 ; ALTAR, 9.

19. The brazen sea and lavers.[edit]

Between the altar and the porch, to the SE. of the temple building, stood the great brazen sea (1 K. 7:23-26), as to probable shape and significance of which see SEA (BRAZEN). To this brazen sea belong the ten wagons (AV bases, nu7lp, mekonoth} with lavers, which were arranged, five on the S. side and five on the N., of the temple (1 K. 7:27-39).

The text of the description of these lavers is extraordinarily corrupt, and inasmuch as the parallel description of the Chronicler is no longer extant, whilst the LXX offers but few data on which a restoration could proceed, it is by no means easy to amend it satisfactorily, and many details in the description, after every effort, still remain obscure. 1 The following description rests on the reconstruction of the text upon which Stade proceeded in 1883 (so also Benz. ad loc.); in many details Stade has since (1901) preferred a different interpretation. The various particulars cannot be discussed here.

[picture of FIG. 6. - The brazen laver. goes here]

The wagons which support the lavers are 4 cubits in length and breadth and 3 in height. Their sides are not of massive plates but consist of a brazen framework ornamented with ties or cross-pieces of brass (misgeroth, EV 'borders'). The ties were subsequently removed by Ahaz for the sake of the metal, so that the frames alone were left (2 K. 16:17). Frames and ties were decorated with lions, oxen, and cherubim. The whole structure was carried on brazen axles and wheels. Upon each stand rested a brazen laver, of 40 baths capacity (see WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, 3 [ii.]), having a diameter of 4 cubits (equal to the length and breadth of the stand). The statement as to the cubic capacity accords with the diameter given (see SEA [BRAZEN]), but the lavers were certainly shallower, and we must also allow for the thickness of the metal. As for the manner in which the lavers were mounted in the stands the most probable conjecture seems to be that a sort of hollow cylinder rested upon the stand and was firmly fixed to it by means of ties and struts; the upper end of this cylinder supported the laver. At a later date these lavers proved stumbling blocks as well as the brazen sea. They are absent alike from the temple of Ezekiel and from the tabernacle of P. In lavers and sea alike we may therefore safely conjecture the original meaning to have been a symbolical one. The cherubims and animals with which they were adorned had at first assuredly a mythological significance. Nowack and others with some probability bring the lavers into connection with the chariot of the cherubim in Ezek. 1 ; there the cherubs are the bearers of the cloud-throne, here of the collected waters. Rosters (Th.T, 1879, p. 455) explained them as symbolising the clouds. This is possible (see SEA, BRAZEN), but cannot be made out with certainty. The Chronicler disposes of any difficulty of this kind connected with these vessels by assigning to lavers and sea alike a highly prosaic function, that of supplying the water required in connection with the sacrifices. It can hardly be said that they were conspicuously well adapted for any such purpose.

1 Cp Ewald, Gott. Gel. Nadir., 1859, pp. 131+, Jahrbb. f. bibl. Wissensch. 10:273, and GVI (3) 3:333-334; Stade, ZATW, 1883, and 1901, 145+; Benz. in KHC (Kon.); Kittel in HK (Kon.), and art. LAVER.

20. Meaning and origin of temple plan.[edit]

If we proceed next to a consideration of the meaning and origin of the whole temple plan, it is plain at the very outset that it reproduces the fundamental type of the Semitic sanctuary, viewed as the abode of the deity in the sense already set forth (see section 1). The essential feature is the little cella, the debir, where the deity himself is conceived of as present in mysterious gloom. In front of this is a greater hall, comparable to the audience-chamber of human kings, where the deity receives the adoration of his worshippers. Finally, in front of the building is an open space with its altar, where the people can gather together around the sacrifice in reverential stillness.

This ground plan - the tripartite - is common to the temples of various peoples. It is seen particularly clearly in Egyptian temples, which has led many scholars (Benz. HA, 385) to think of a preponderant Egyptian influence here. There are other considerations, however, which serve to render this less probable. In the case of the other Solomonic buildings Syro-phoenician influence is quite unmistakable (cp PALACE). Phoenician architects built temple as well as palace, and can hardly fail to have embodied their ideas in both. In point of fact all the noteworthy features of a distinc tive kind in the temple buildings of Solomon have been discovered also in the temples of the northern Semites. Puchstein (Jahrb. d. kaiser l. -deutschen archaol. Inst. 7:13), on the basis of a comparative survey of the extant architectural remains, thus characterises the Syrian temple: 'To judge by the (as yet not very numerous) certain examples of Syrian temple-architecture, a complete old Syrian temple consisted of portico, cella, Holy of Holies, and side-buildings. Portico and side-buildings are to be regarded as capable of being dispensed with according to circumstances. The Holy of Holies can be open or closed, on a level with the cella or above it, semi-circular or angular, and the side-buildings can be either divided or undivided. Robertson Smith (art. 'Temple' in Ency. Brit. (9)) points especially to the temple at Hierapolis (Mabug], which, as described by Lucian, offers an exact parallel. It faced the E. and had two cells; and a pronaos. In front of the door stood a brazen altar in a walled court. This walled court is also one of the characteristic peculiarities of the Syrian temple (cp T. L. Donaldson, Architectura Numismatica, London, 1859; Renan, Mission de Phenicie; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Jud. ). On details of decoration, cp CHERUB. The palm tree, likewise so prominent a motif in the temple, is also one of the commonest symbols in Phoenician art.

21. History of Solomon's temple.[edit]

When Solomon built his temple, it was as a royal private chapel, one sanctuary among many, and not even the most famous of these; the ancient sanctuaries of Bethel, Beersheba, Dan, etc., long continued to rank far above it in the popular estimation. The development in the standing of the temple and its importance in the history of Israel need not be dwelt on here (see DEUTERONOMY, 13 ; ISRAEL, 33-34; LAW LITERATURE, 13) ; but it falls within the scope of the present sketch to trace the external history of the temple building itself. Unfortunately, here also our sources are far from copious, and sometimes what has reached us is far from clear. Of Jehoshaphat the Chronicler relates (2 Ch. 20:5) that he built an 'outer' court. The form of the notice - that it is with an 'outer' court that we are now concerned (see above section 13) - is due to the Chronicler; but the fact itself need not on that account be questioned. Under Joram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah the sanctuary must have been greatly neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair ; under Joash at least extensive repairs had become necessary (2 K. 12:4+). Jotham built a new gate, the 'upper gate' of the minor forecourt (2 K. 15:35) already referred to. The 'godless' Ahaz also beautified the sanctuary, although, indeed, this is set down by the narrator to his discredit ; he caused a new and more magnificent altar after the pattern he had seen at Damascus to be set up in place of the old. Afterwards indeed he found himself in such monetary straits that to meet the demand of the king of Assyria he found himself compelled to strip off the ties (EV 'borders', misgeroth) of the lavers, and to melt the oxen of brass which supported the brazen sea (2 K. 16:14+) an incidental illustration of the freedom with which the kings acted within their own private sanctuary. In the spoiling of the temple it was no other than the pious Hezekiah who followed the example Ahaz had set; after having in prosperous days overlaid the door-posts and doors of the temple with gold, he found it necessary to strip them again to meet the demand of the Assyrian king (2 K. 18:16). The structural changes made in the temple by Manasseh were connected with his introduction of foreign eastern cults; on the temple roof and in the court he set up altars to the 'host of heaven' (2 K. 23:12) ; the houses for the hieroduli and the accommodation for the horses of the sun (2 K. 23:7, 23:11) are doubtless also to be assigned to Manasseh's reign. Josiah removed all this, and took in hand extensive restorations of the temple fabric (2 K. 23:5+).

According to our present accounts the temple was plundered by foreign foes four times before its final destruction by the Babylonians.

First by Shishak in Rehoboam's time (1 K. 14:26); again, under Joram's reign, by the Philistines in conjunction with Arab tribes (Joel 3, cp 2 Ch. 21:1617, 22:1); a third time under Amaziah by Joash, king of Israel (2 K. 14:14) ; and a fourth time under Jehoiachim by Nebuchadrezzar (2 K. 24:13). These all contented themselves with robbing the temple of its treasures, without carrying the work of destruction farther so far as we know.

It was not till eleven years after the first appearance of Nebuchadrezzar that the building itself was burnt to the ground, after it had been stripped of everything valuable, - whether of gold, silver, or bronze, - the pillars also being broken up and carried away (2 K. 25:8+, Jer. 52:12+, 2 Ch. 36:18). This was according to the MT of 2 K. on the seventh of the fifth month, according to Jer. on the tenth day of the fifth month, and according to LXX{L} of 2 K. 25:8 on the ninth day of the month. The Talmud harmonises:- on the seventh day the Chaldaeans forced the temple, on the evening of the ninth they set fire to it, and on the tenth it was destroyed.

22. Ezekiel's temple.[edit]

Ezekiel's temple (Ezek. 40-43) {1} never got beyond the theoretical stage, and remained always an imaginative construction merely. It demands some notice here, however, as giving expression to a new conception of the sanctuary and its significance - new or at least differing from that which finds expression in the temple of Solomon. On the other hand, as already remarked, the later representation is, as has been pointed out above, in many respects fitted to be of use to us in our reconstruction of the earlier temple. The fundamental conception of the entire structure is the strict separation of sacred from profane. The whole temple area is sacrosanct, and no secular building of any description, whether royal or official, is allowed a place within its precincts. The whole eastern hill is set apart for its exclusive occupancy. A protective area, the land of the Zadokites, encloses it and shuts out the rest of Jerusalem. At no point are the city walls allowed to be in immediate contact with this land of priests. A similar determination to separate sacred from profane dominates the internal arrangements. It is with this purpose in view that the temple has two courts (whereas the pre-exilic temple had but one) ; the inner court is accessible only to the officiating priests and their servants the Levites. The laity are restricted to the outer court.

Another characteristic feature of the whole arrangement is the strict symmetry observed throughout. The fundamental unit of measurement is the length of 50 cubits; the buildings exhibit by preference the proportion of 1:2 ; the gateways are 25 cubits in width and 50 in length, the temple proper 50 cubits (from end to end 100), the open space surrounding the altar is 100 cubits square, and so forth. The entire temple area is 500 cubits square, enclosed by a wall 6 cubits in height and thickness. Outside this wall a further strip, 50 cubits in breadth, is still reckoned to the holy territory, and must not be cultivated even by the priests. The northern, eastern, and southern sides are pierced at the middle by great gateways (25x50 cubits), each with siderooms and a gateway. These lead into the outer court which surrounds the inner to a breadth of 150 cubits on the northern, eastern, and southern sides. On each of these three sides are 10 cells - making a total of 30 - intended to be used by the people for miscellaneous purposes such as refreshment and the like (cp Ezra 10:6, Neh. 13:4-5). In the four corners are lesser courts separated off by partitions ; here are the kitchens where the Levites cook the offering of the people. Gateways corresponding exactly to the three gates just mentioned lead on the three sides from the outer to the inner court. Within and in close proximity to the eastern gate stand the tables for slaughtering the sin- and trespass -offerings (or burnt offerings and peace-offerings). At the N. and S. gates are chambers for the officiating priests. Exactly in the middle of the square in front of the temple stands the altar of burnt offering. The temple building itself, which stood on a higher level reached by ten steps, consisted of a porch (20 cubits in width and 12 in depth), the Holy Place (40x20 cubits, inside measurement), the Holy of Holies (20 x 20 cubits) and the three-storied side-building. The thickness of the walls was, in the main building, 6 cubits, and in the side building 5 ; the width of the chambers was 4 cubits, the total breadth thus amounting to 50 cubits. The total length, including the porch, was 100 cubits, outside measurement.

1 The text of Ezekiel's description of his temple is very corrupt. It is impossible therefore to reconstruct it with exactitude. Consult especially Cornill's edition of the text; as also the commentaries of Smend and Hertholet, and the Archaeologies of Benzinger and Nowack. On Ezekiel's altar cp ZKWL, 1883, pp. 67+, 458+, 1884, pp. 496+.

23. Zerubbabel's temple.[edit]

As the Chronicler relates, the first care of the exiles on their return was the restoration of divine worship. In the first instance, however, they contented themselves with setting up a new altar of burnt offering on the site of the old (Ezra 3:3; cp Hag. 2:14). So much indeed was evidently indispensable; without an altar there could be no sacrifice, without sacrifice no worship, without worship no Jewish community. A considerable time elapsed before the returned exiles proceeded to the building of a temple proper. In our present book of Ezra indeed it is made out as if the work was begun with great zeal immediately after the return. It has long been recognised, however, that the representation in Ezra in its essential features is unhistorical (see EZRA-NEHEMIAH, 6-7, 10, 16 [1], 17; HAGGAI, 3 (6) ISRAEL, 53+).

24. Measurements, etc.[edit]

As regards the building itself the OT supplies us with only a few fragmentary notes, which are but sparingly supplemented by Josephus and Pseudo-Hecataeus (ap. Jos). The dimensions of the whole temple area are given by Hecataeus (ap. Jos. c. Ap. 1:22), in so far as he tells us that the court was 5 plethra (i.e. , 500 Gk. ft. = 485.5 Eng. ft.) in length, and 100 Gk. cubits ( = 145.5 ft.) in breadth. The gates had double doors. Within the court stood the altar which now was in exact accordance with the precepts of the law, being constructed of unhewn stones (1 Macc. 4:44). Doubtless also it was reached by a sloping ascent instead of steps. According to Hecataeus it was as large as that of Solomon. In like manner, in accordance with the description of the tabernacle arrangements, there was but one laver in the court (Midd. 36; Ecclus. 50:3 : the latter passage is certainly very corrupt). Of the gates mention is made in Neh. 3:31 of the Miphkad Gate, and in Neh. 12:39 of the Prison Gate, which last doubtless was on the southern side. Whether the cells and store-rooms (lishkoth ; Tra,ffTo<t>6pia [pastophoria]) of which we incidentally hear, were in the court or in, the side-building of the temple itself we do not know. 1 Over the Tyropoeon valley was a bridge from the temple area which was broken down by the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey ; its position is indicated by the so-called Wilson-arch. When it was erected we do not know (Josephus, Ant. 14:4:2; BJ 1:7:2, 2:163, 6:6:2). Like Ezekiel's temple this also had two courts (av\al [aulai], 1 Macc. 4:34, 4:48): only - the point of chief importance - the laity had in this case access to the inner as well as the outer court and to the altar. When on one occasion Alexander Jannaeus did something that was contrary to the sacrificial ritual, the multitude pelted him with palm branches and citrons. It was only in consequence of this incident that he afterwards caused a wooden enclosure to be set up round the altar, the space within which was thenceforth accessible to the priests alone (Jos. Ant. 13:13:5). The whole account of Josephus presupposes that until that time the laity had unhindered access to the inner court and altar. In this most essential matter of the strict exclusion of the laity from the sanctuary proper, accordingly, we see that the demands of Ezekiel and P were not carried out immediately but only gradually made way.

The temple building itself, according to Ezra 6:3, had a breadth and height of 60 cubits. But this statement has no satisfactory sense. It is all the less credible because we are expressly informed that this second temple came so far short of that of Solomon that in the eyes of those who had seen the first it appeared as nothing (Hag. 2:3). Certainly, therefore, it cannot have been so very considerably larger than the other. The text of the passage is hopelessly corrupt (cp also Ryssel and Bertholet in loc.).

25. Internal arrangements.[edit]

As regards the internal arrangements, we know that the Holy of Holies was empty; the ark no longer existed. A stone three fingers in height was laid in the place of the ark so that the high priest on the Day of Atonement could set down his censer upon it. It was the foundation stone (eben shethiyyah) already referred to in section 5; cp Jos. BJ 5:5:5, Yoma 5:2). The Holy of Holies were separated from the Holy Place by a curtain (1 Macc. 1:22, 4:51).

The Holy Place, in like manner, was closed by a curtain (1 Macc. 4:51) ; within it stood, as in the former temple, a table of shewbread. The place of the ten candlesticks (see 17) was taken by one with seven branches which was removed by Antiochus (1 Macc. 12:3). It was restored by Judas the Maccabee. The Holy Place also contained the golden altar of incense. As already mentioned, this was a quite recent arrangement, resulting from a duplication of the golden table. It is interesting to notice that the accounts continue to vacillate down to a quite late date ; Hecataeus and the author of 2 Macc. 2:5, each naming two pieces of furniture in the sanctuary : the former (Jos. c. Ap. 1:22) the /3w/u6s [boomos] and the candlestick, the latter the incense altar and the candlestick. On the Arch of Titus, also, only two pieces are shown.

1 Cp 1 Macc. 4:38; Jos. Ant. 11:4:7, 14:16:2; Ezra 8:29, 10:6, Neh. 3:30, 10:37+, 12:44+, 13:5+

26. A priestly temple.[edit]

The first temple resembled other temples of antiquity in being built to contain a visible symbol of the presence of the deity, namely, the ark, which stood in the inner chamber. In the second temple the adytum was empty; but the idea that the Godhead was locally present in it, still found expression in the continuance of the altar service, in the table of shewbread (a sort of continual lectisternium) that stood in the outer chamber, and above all in the annual ritual of the Day of Atonement, when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of the expiatory sacrifice on behalf of the people.

Not only in this point but in all others the ritual of the second temple was dominated by the idea of priestly mediation, and the stated sacrifices of the priests on behalf of the people, which took the place of the old stated oblations of the kings, became the main feature of the altar service. The first temple was primarily the royal chapel, and the kings did as they pleased in it ; the second temple was the sanctuary of the priests, whose chief now became the temporal as well as the spiritual head of the people. In the time of Ezekiel, not only laymen but uncircumcised foreigners entered the sanctuary and acted as servants in the sacred offices (Ezek. 44:7) ; in the second temp e the laity were anxiously kept at a distance from the holy things, and even part of the court around the altar was fenced off, as we have just seen, by a barrier, which only the priests were allowed to cross (Jos. Ant. 13:13:5).

27. History of second temple.[edit]

As regards the later history of Zerubbabel's temple, the subsequent works upon it and the strengthening of the wall surrounding the outer court are associated with the name of the high priest SIMON II. (Ecclus. 50:1). Antiochus Epiphanes not only plundered it, but desecrated it by setting up on the altar of burnt offering a small altar to Jupiter Olympius (1 Macc. 1:23+, 1:44+, 1:54, 4:38, 2 Macc. 6:2+). Three years later, after the reconquest of the city, Judas the Maceabee restored the temple, set up a new altar with new furniture, and consecrated the building anew (cp 1 Macc. 1:23+, 4:43+, 4:52-53, 2 Macc. 10:5, Jos. Ant. 12:7:6). At the same time he fortified the temple with high towers and walls (1 Macc. 4:60, 4:67), so that the temple thenceforward could be regarded as the citadel proper of Jerusalem. These fortifications were demolished by Antiochus II. Eupator (1 Macc. 6:22); but they were again restored by Jonathan (1 Macc. 12:36 Jos. Ant. 13:5:51), and at a later period further strengthened by Simon (1 Macc. 13:52). At the time of Pompey's siege (63 B.C.) the temple was an exceptionally strong fortress, defended on the northern and more accessible side by towers and deep ditches (Ant. 14:4:2). Pompey took it by storm, but left the sacred vessels untouched (Ant. 14:4:7). Crassus, on the other hand, plundered it without mercy (Ant. 14:7:1, BJ 1:8:8). The temple was again besieged and stormed by Herod; like Pompey he concentrated his attack on the north side. In this siege some of the temple cloisters were burnt and some persons killed ; but the desecration stopped at this (Ant. 14:16:2-3).

28. The temple of Herod.[edit]

In the twentieth year of his reign (20-19 B.C.) Herod the Great began to build the temple anew. Besides the descriptions in Josephus, we have for Herod's temple a mass of details and measurements in the Mishnic treatise Middoth. Josephus was himself a priest, whilst the Mishnah was not written till a century after the destruction of the temple, though it uses traditions that go back to Levites who had served in the temple. The two sources differ in many measurements, and the Middoth appears to be possessed of detailed traditions only for the inner temple. The state of the evidence is not such as to allow a plan of the temple to be formed with architectural precision. The following account rests almost entirely on Josephus, who, apart from certain exaggerations in detail, gives a satisfactory general account, such as could be written from memory without notes and drawings (for literature, see 43).

29. Herod's motives.[edit]

Herod s motives in this undertaking were not so much religious as political. On the one hand it afforded him an opportunity of some satisfaction to the religious feelings of his Jewish subjects, which he had so often outraged, and of gaining some favour in pious circles throughout the country. On the other hand, he had his full share of the passion for building, which characterised that age. After raising so many splendid temples in the various Greek cities of his kingdom, it seemed hardly fitting that the temple of his capital should fall behind the others in magnificence. His preparations for the work, we are told, were made on a very comprehensive and elaborate scale, so as to spare the Jews any apprehension lest in the event of his death the scheme should remain uncompleted. In other directions, also, he showed all possible respect for the religious susceptibilities of his compatriots. As it was not lawful for any laymen to enter the inner precincts of the temple, he found it necessary to have a thousand priests trained as masons and carpenters, so that the building might be duly completed.

30. Plan of temple.[edit]

The rebuilding meant, in the first place, a considerable enlargement of the temple area. According to Josephus' account (Ant. 15:11:3, BJ 1:21), the former area was exactly doubled, and the perimeter raised from four stadia (Ant. 15:11:3) to six (BJ 5:5:2). In other words, the breadth (from E. to W. ) remained as before - a stadium (Ant. 15:11:3) - but the length (N. to S. ) was increased from one stadium to two. The available level ground on the temple hill was insufficient for a plan so extended, and vast substructions on the southern side became necessary. The whole S. wall was new from the foundation. Even to-day the southern portion of the temple area is seen to rest on immense arches, known in Arab tradition as Solomon's stables, but really dating from the time of Herod.

The whole area was surrounded by a battlemented wall (BJ 4:9:12). On the N. was the gate Tadi of the Mishnah, which Josephus mentions only incidentally. This, like the gate Shushan on the E., which he does not mention at all, must have been of minor importance ; the chief accesses were necessarily from the lower city to the S. , and the upper city to the W. beyond the Tyropoeon valley. The S. wall, says Josephus, had gates in the middle (Ant. 15:11:5). The Mishnah names them the two gates of Huklah. There is a double gate in the substructure of the S. wall, 350 ft. from the SW. angle, and from it a double tunnel leads up to the platform. This double gate exactly fits Josephus's description. There is also a triple gate, 600 ft. from the SW. angle, which is probably to be regarded as the second Huldah gate. In the W. side the Mishnah places one gate (Kiponus), while Josephus recognises four. The most southerly is necessarily the one which opened on a flight of steps descending, and then reascending across the Tyropoeon to the upper city opposite. Now, at the SW. corner of the platform, there are still remains of the great arch (Robinson's arch), which must have belonged to a bridge connecting the upper city with the S. portico of the temple. Many scholars (as, for example, W. R. Smith, in Ency. Brit. (9), s.v. 'Temple') look for this southern gate here. It is more probable, however, that it lay somewhat farther to the N. , at the point where, tolerably low down in the temple wall, the colossal lintel of a gate was found, consisting of a single stone. The steps of which Josephus speaks, must, in that case, have been inside the gate, as the gate itself was not far above the level of the bottom of the valley. Comparing BJ 2:16:3, 6:6:2, 5:4:2, we see that the embankment also carried the city wall (the so-called first wall). Of this approach there are remains at Wilson s arch, 600 ft. N. of Robinson's arch. Here also as in the case of Robinson's arch, under the so-called Wilson's arch, have been found remains of the arch of an older bridge in the Roman style, which presumably dates from the Herodian period (as to this cp JERUSALEM, 8). Round the entire temple area on all four sides ran porticoes built against the enclosing wall. The finest was that on the S. side - the Stoa Basilica - which was formed by four rows of Corinthian columns of dazzling white marble (162 columns in all). Of the three aisles that in the middle was twice as high (some 28 metres) as those flanking it, and broader by one half (some 12 metres). On the three other sides of the area were double porticoes, some 15 metres in breadth with monolith pillars of some 12 metres in height. All hese buildings were roofed with cedar beams, richly carved (Jos. Ant. 15:11:5, BJ 5:52). The eastern portico was known as Solomon's porch (Jn. 10:23, Acts 3:11-12, 5:12); there must therefore have previously stood on this side a structure which was considered as resting on Solomon's foundations. The court itself immediately within these buildings was paved in mosaic fashion with stone.

Connected with the temple was the citadel of Antonia (see JERUSALEM, 28). It lay on the NW. and dominated the temple area (Jos. Ant. 15:11:4). Stairs descended from it to the NW. corner of the area, to the northern and western porticoes.

31. The courts and gates.[edit]

In the temple of Herod the separation of sacred from profane was rigorous. The Antonia, the porches, and the space immediately within these were not holy ground, in the strict sense of the word. They were accessible to Gentiles even, on which account the 'outer' court is actually often called the 'court of the Gentiles', although this description is nowhere met with, either in Josephus or in the Mishna. In the centre of this enclosed space rose a platform at a height of 15 cubits above the court of the Gentiles - the inner court with the sanctuary proper. This platform itself was in turn surrounded by a narrow terrace, 10 cubits in breadth (hel : BJ 5:5:2; Middoth, 2:3). From the court of the Gentiles fourteen steps led up to this terrace, and from this again five steps to the gate of the inner court (see Jos. BJ 5:5:2 ; Middoth gives the number of the steps differently). There was no entrance upon the W. side. A breastwork (rriDi sorag) of stone ran round the whole of the inner court beneath the level of the steps. On it were placed at intervals inscribed tablets forbidding every one who was not a Jew from crossing the limit or treading the holy place, on pain of death. 1 At the top of the steps was the inner court properly so called, surrounded by a wall rising 25 cubits above the level of the outer court. The inner court was divided into two unequal portions by a cross wall running N. and S. The eastern and smaller space, which lay at a somewhat lower level, formed the so-called court of the women ('atsarath. nashim, D ifO rmy, Midd. 2:5), and was accessible to Jewish women. The western space, containing the temple buildings properly so called, was for men only. The wall enclosing the inner court was pierced by nine gates ; the N. and S. sides had each four gates, the easternmost of which in each case led directly into the court of the women, whilst the others opened into that of the men. The gates had double doors which were covered with silver and gold, the gift of the Jewish alabarch, Alexander of Alexandria. To the W. there was no gate and the E. side had but one, 1 which, however, was specially magnificent and costly. Its doors were of Corinthian brass. It led, according to what has just been said, directly into the court of the women. In a straight line with it, finally, in the wall between the courts of the men and women, the most magnificent of all the gates closed the eastern approach to the temple (Jos. BJ 5:5:3). It was the Great gate, 40 cubits broad and 50 cubits high; 15 semicircular steps here ascended from the court of the women to that of the men. Which of these two doors on the E. is intended by the 'Beautiful' gate of Acts 3:2, it is impossible to determine. According to the Mishna (Midd. 14), the last-named inner gate between the court of the men and that of the women corresponded to the gate of Nicanor ; ac cording to the description of these gates by Josephus, however, there would seem to be some mistake in this. The gates were probably 2 all of them porch-like in plan, with side recesses (exedrae) which made the connection with the chambers skirting the length of the walls. In like manner there was an upper chamber above the gateway properly so called (cp Midd. 1:5; Tamid, 1:1, where mention is made of an upper chamber of the gate of Sparks [psrari nj, tr] on the N. side). This gave the gates the tower-like appearance of which Josephus speaks.

1 One such inscription (Greek and Latin) is still extant (PEFQ St., 1871, p. 132; Benz. HA 404; Nowack, HA 2:77)-.

32. The chambers.[edit]

Along the enclosing wall ran a series of chambers (leshakoth) which served for storage of the various utensils, skins of sacrificial animals, sacrificial salt, wood, vestments, and the like, or for various operations, such as the preparation of the meal-offering, and so forth.

The supreme council also held its sittings in one of these chambers. Their precise number is unknown. Midd. 5:3-4 mentions three on the N. and three on the S. ; elsewhere yet others are alluded to. According to Midd. 2:5 there were four chambers in the women's court also - a piece of information, however, the accuracy of which is with reason called in question (Schurer in Riehm, HWB, conjectures that the statement is an inference from Ezek. 46:21). Some of these chambers (whether all of them is uncertain) had upper stories (Yoma 1:5, and Tamid 1:1; allusion is made to an upper chamber of the Bet-Abtinas). In front of the chambers were, as in the first inner court, porticoes, though much smaller in size. Finally, we hear of thirteen offertory chests for free-will offerings of all sorts.

From this court of the Israelites the portion immediately surrounding the sanctuary was separated by a breastwork of stone - on all sides, according to the express statement of Josephus (BJ 5:56, Ant. 13:13:5); but the Mishna (Midd. 26) speaks only of a wall running from N. to S. The area thus shut off was the court of the priests. Laymen had access to this court only when the ritual connected with certain offerings demanded the presence of the persons presenting them.

1 According to Midd. 1:6 (cp M. Skekalim, 6:2) the gates on the S. side were these:

  • (1) p ^V? "^ ^ (wanting in Midd. 1:4-5);
  • (2) pjn y;
  • (3) Dili 32? y\
  • (4) C Cn r;

and those on the N. side were:

  • (1) " TJr c*;
  • (2) ja pn v ;
  • (3) C lTin v ;
  • (4) " l i ? : ? ^

Midd. 1:4-5 gives three, quite different names; those at the eastern end leading into the court of the women are not taken account of at all.

2 Jos. BJ 5:53 seems to presuppose this for all the gates. Elsewhere in Josephus mention is made of the northern or western exedra, so that it might seem as if not all the gates were so constructed. The last seems to be the view of the Mishna also. Moreover, a hall or exedra of the same kind existed also upon the W. side, where there was no gate.

33. The temple building.[edit]

Within the court of the priests stood on a still higher level the temple building proper. The ascent to it was by twelve steps (Midd. 36). The ground plan and dimensions of the building were the same as in the temple of Solomon - viz., 60 cubits in length, 20 in breadth. and 40 in height. Two costly curtains shut off the Holy of Holies (20 x 20 cubits), which was quite empty. The outer curtain was folded back upon the S. side, whilst the inner was similarly folded back on the N. side, so that in this way the high priest entered the intermediate space from the S. and passing along it entered the Holy of Holies on the N. side.

The anterior apartment of the sanctuary (VavHITWl Midd. 4:7) was 40 cubits in length. It was entered from the E. through the porch by a great double door (-\yy ^un Midd. 4:2, cp Tamid 37) of 40 cubits in height and 16 cubits in width (so Jos. BJ 5:5:4; according to Midd. 4:1 only 20 cubits high and 10 broad). Like the gates of the court it was richly covered with gold. In front of the great door hung a magnificent curtain of Babylonian workmanship ; its colour according to Josephus symbolised the universe : byssus the earth, purple the sea, scarlet the element of fire, and hyacinth the air (BJ 5:54). Above the gate were golden vines and grape clusters as big as a man (BJ 5:5:4; Ant. 15:11:3, cp Tacit. Hist. 55). The sanctuary was accessible only to the officiating priests. The altar of incense stood near the entrance to the Holy of Holies, the table of shewbread to the N., the seven-branched candlestick to the S. (cp the figures on the arch of Titus ; also CANDLESTICK).

Eastward from the temple was, as in the temple of Solomon, a porch ('ulam) 100 cubits in breadth, 100 cubits in height and 20 cubits deep (according to Midd. 4:7 only 11 cubits). Its gateway, which had no doors, was 70 cubits high and 20 cubits broad (Jos. BJ 5:5; according to Midd. 3:7 it was only 40 cubits high and 20 cubits broad). Above this gate Herod caused the name of Agrippa his patron (BJ 1:21:3) and a golden eagle to be placed. The eagle was, as may well be believed, an abomination in the eyes of pious Jews ; and Josephus tells how, shortly before the death of Herod, two zealous rabbins incited some youths to tear it down (Ant. 17:6:2-4).

The temple building had an upper story of the same dimensions with the lower (BJ 5:5:5). The Holy of Holies could be entered directly from above by means of a trap-door; by this means workmen could be let down in boxes whenever repairs were needed. The access to the upper room was from the S. from the roof of the side-building. As in Solomon's temple, the side-building surrounded the house on the S. , W. , and N. It was three-storied and 40 cubits in height. The individual chambers were not only connected with those on the same floor by means of doors, but there was communication between those above and those below by means of trap-doors. The principal entrance was on the NE. where it was possible to pass from the portico direct into these chambers. The whole breadth of the temple buildings inclusive of the side-building was 70 cubits (Midd. 4:7, where the separate figures are given from which this total results). Thus the porch on each side exceeded by 15 cubits the breadth of the temple building.

Eastwards of the temple at a distance of 22 cubits from the porch, in the court of the priests, stood the great altar of burnt offering of unhewn stones (see ALTAR). At the SW. corner was a channel which drained into the Kidron valley. Twenty-four rings fixed in the ground to the N. of the altar served for tying up the sacrificial animals, there were eight pillars connected by cedar beams for hanging up the carcases, and eight marble tables on which to prepare the sacrificial flesh (Midd. 3:5, 5:2, Tamid 3:5, Shekalim 6:4). On the S. side was the bronze laver at which the priests washed hands and feet before entering the sanctuary (Midd. 3:6; cp Yoma 3:10); also a silver table for the vessels and a marble table for the sacrificial flesh (Shekalim 6:4; Tamid 4:3) Herod's gigantic and costly structures were still in building forty-six years after their commencement, when Jesus began his ministry (Jn. 2:20), and the works were not completed till the procuratorship of Albinus (62-64 A. n. ). In 66 the great revolt against Rome broke out, and in August 70 Jerusalem was taken by Titus and the temple perished in a great conflagration.

I. B.


34. Introductory.[edit]

The system of worship of which the Jerusalem sanctuary was the centre assumed its most elaborate and highly developed form in the temple of Herod.

The immense and manifold religious activities that concentrated themselves in the temple worship, can only be adequately realised when it is remembered how unique was the position occupied by Judaism s central shrine. It was absolutely the one and only sanctuary where the highest expressions of the religious life of a whole people could be offered. Judaism possessed but one sanctuary, and that was in Jerusalem.

At the time when the Christian movement was born, Palestine - though its population was by no means exclusively or (except in such districts as Judaea and possibly Galilee) even predominantly Jewish - had once again become the centre of Jewish national life. And it was in the Holy City, and pre-eminently in the temple worship, that this life found its most intense and Jewish expression. Jerusalem was constantly thronged with pilgrims from the Jewish communities scattered over the E. and W. worlds (see DISPERSION) laden with gifts for the temple. And here, in the elaborate sacrificial worship, they rendered the highest tribute of homage within their power to the God of their fathers. How immense the influence of the temple worship was is evidenced by the large space devoted to its details - the minutiae of its ritual and organisation - in the later Jewish literature (the Mishna and Gemara), which was compiled long after the destruction of the sanctuary. Such pious ejaculations as, for instance, the following constantly recur. Towards the end of the Mishna tractate Tamid, which sets forth in detail the course of the daily offering, we read: 'Such is the order of the daily offering for the service of the house of our God. May it be his will to build it speedily in our days. Amen' (7:3). The same sentiment finds frequent expression in the liturgy of the synagogue, which also reflects the influence of the sacrificial worship in its essential structure. Cp SYNAGOGUE.

Of the more important features of this worship, so far as known, a brief sketch may here be appended. As a preliminary to this it will be necessary to give some account of the officers by whom it was carried on.

35. Officers, etc.[edit]

(a) The Priests. According to Josephus (c. Ap. 2:8) the priesthood in his day numbered no less than 20,000 men. It was only on rare occasions - at certain of the high festivals - that the whole, or anything like the whole, of this number officiated at one time within the temple precincts. For the purposes of regular worship this body was, as is well known, divided into twenty-four 'courses' (mishmar, 7s63e, 'watch' = Trarpia [patria] or ^^/xepia [ephemeria], cp Lk. 1:5, 1:8, or tfirjfjifpis [ephemeris]); and the 'courses' again into subdivisions or 'families' (ni3K r\3 = <f )V ^ [phyle]).

It is interesting to note that Josephus (Vit. 1:1) claims to belong by birth to the first of the twenty-four 'courses' - that of Joiarib - from which also the Hasmonaeans sprang (1 Macc. 2:1). Both the main- and the sub-divisions were presided over by heads (C D NI), each of whom was termed respectively 'head of the course' (ICC CH PHI) or 'head of the family' (2N H 3 fKl).

Each 'course' in succession was responsible for the regular temple services for the week (from sabbath to sabbath), and divided up the week s services among its 'families' according to their number (which varied).

At the head of the whole priesthood stood the high priest (kohen hag-gadol, Snjn ;.-ID, dpxt6/rei * [archiereus), at this time the greatest native personage, both in church and state, to whom was reserved the performance of the highest religious acts, such as the supreme sacrificial act enacted on the Day of Atonement. On ordinary occasions, however, it was rare for him to participate officially in the temple worship, and as a rule he did so, according to Josephus, only on sabbaths, new moons, and the great annual festivals (BJ 5:5:7). During the time of the Roman predominance the office was held almost exclusively by members of two or three families (those of Phabi, Boethus, Ananus, and Kamith) who formed the priestly aristocracy, and were divided by a deep social gulf from the great mass of the priesthood.

(b) Levites. - Another class of temple officials, occupying a position subordinate to that of the priests, was the Levites, who, however, like the priests, formed at this time a strictly exclusive and hereditary order, though, strange to say, they had now absorbed the musicians and door-keepers, who (even in the post-exilic period) had formerly been carefully distinguished from the Levites proper. Later still (just before the destruction of the temple) the musicians advanced a step further in securing from King Agrippa II., with the assent of the Sanhedrin, the privilege of wearing the white linen garments of the regular priesthood (Ant. 20:9:6).

The Levites, like the priests, were divided into twenty-four 'courses', and each performed duty in a corresponding manner. Similarly these were also presided over by 'heads' (c C Nl)-

(c) The official 'Israelites'. - Corresponding to the divisions of the priests and the Levites there was also a division of the people into twenty-four courses of service (nnDtfc) 'each of which had to take its turn in coming before God, every day for a whole week, by way of representing the whole body of people while the daily sacrifice was being offered to Yahwe' (Schurer). The division on duty for the time being was technically termed 'a station' (ma'amad, le3ays). It seems, however, that not the whole division, but only a deputation of it, was actually required to be present at the offering of the sacrifice in the temple. At the time when this was being performed the absent members of the 'station' met together in the local synagogues for prayer and the reading of certain passages of Scripture. The leading passage on the subject in the Mishna (Ta'anith 4:2) runs as follows :

'The earliest prophets established twenty-four courses of service (miScr4o)- To each belonged a staff (-joy£^c) in Jerusalem, composed of priests, Levites, and Israelites. As soon as its turn to serve came round to a course, the priests and the Levites belonging to it proceeded to Jerusalem, but the Israelitesas sembled in the synagogues of their different towns and there read the account of the creation'.

(It should be noted that the whole of the course, of priests and Levites, when its turn came, had to be present in Jerusalem.)

36. Functions of priests and Levites.[edit]

The part taken by the high priest in the temple worship has already been referred to, and need not here be further enlarged on. It may be pointed out, however, that the daily meal-offering of the high priest, which was offered in conjunction with the daily burnt-offering of the people (Lev. 6:12-16), was (in practice) not so much offered by him as on his behalf and at his expense. According to Schurer (Hist. 2:1:288 n. 243) it is this offering which is referred to in the difficult passage Heb. 7:27, though it was in no sense a sin-offering.

The functions of the ordinary priests, when they were engaged in the service, mainly consisted in ministrations at the altar. These will be described in greater detail below ( 38). To the priests the Levites were in all respects subordinate - the strictly priestly function of officiating at the altar was forbidden to the Levites, nor were they permitted to enter the inner sanctuary; their duties mainly consisted in such offices as the guarding of the temple fabric, and acting as choristers and doorkeepers (see further below, 6). There were, however, other high officials of whom mention must be made. The most important of these was the segan (Aram, jjp, the vocalisation of the Heb. form po [SGN] is uncertain), who ranked next to the high priest. The widely-held view that the segan was the high priest's deputy or substitute has been controverted on cogent grounds by Schurer (Hist. 2:1:257-258) who points out that a substitute for the high priest was appointed annually, seven days before the Day of Atonement, to act in case of necessity (Yoma 1:1) a superfluous provision if an official substitute already existed. Schurer gives good reasons for identifying this official with the captain of the temple (ffrpaTTrjyos TOV iepoD [strategos tou ierou]) frequently mentioned in both Josephus and the NT, who controlled all arrangements for maintaining order within the temple area. Subordinate to him, but exercising functions essentially similar, were a number of other seganim or captains of the temple police, who are probably to be identified with the 'captains' (ffrparriyoi [strategoi]) of Lk. 224 :52.

Next in dignity to the high priest and the segan ranked the heads of the twenty-four courses (iceSn t?jn) and (below them) those of the constituent 'families' (DN JvatPNi). Besides the above there were various other functionaries connected with the temple among the priests and Levites. These (following Schurer) we may group into three divisions :

(a) Those entrusted with the administration of the temple stores, furniture, and treasures. The officials who controlled this vast department - which included not merely the custody of the sacrificial plate and vestments, and supplies of corn, wine, and oil for ritual purposes, but also the care of vast sums of money belonging to the temple, as well as of large amounts deposited there by private individuals for safety - were known as 'treasurers' (gizbarim, D 12J3 ; yafo<pv\a.Kes [gazophylakes]). They also gathered in the half-shekel tax (Shek. 2:1). The full complement of officials in this department must have been very large, and may have included Levites ; but, in any case, the more important offices connected with it were filled by priests.

Not improbably the 'treasurer' mentioned by Josephus in conjunction with the high priest (Ant. 20:8:11) was the head of the order. To the order of treasurers, forming probably one of its subdivisions, belonged the amarkelin (p->31DK), a word of Persian origin meaning 'accountants'. The Jerusalem Talmud also mentions another class that falls within this category: viz., the pp-Sinp (Ko.Qak.iKoC [katholikoi]), about whom, however, the Mishna is silent.

(b} Officials connected with the police department. Here Levites were mostly employed. According to the Mishna (Tamid 1:1), of twenty-four points at which guards were stationed at night no less than twenty-one were occupied by Levites, whilst the other three were watched by priests. In point of fact the whole space within the low barrier beyond which Gentiles were forbidden to pass on pain of death (31) - i.e. , the inner court, or court proper - was guarded by priests. Outside of this inner court, at the gates and the corners, the Levite posts were stationed, and also (but on the inside) at the gates and the corners of the outer court (i.e., the 'court of the gentiles'; 31). All these gates were also occupied during the day time, and, amongst other things, it was the duty of the Levitical guards to see that the prohibition of Gentiles from entering the sacred enclosure was strictly carried out. Patrols also moved round by night and day. At night it was usual for a captain of the temple, known as o K rv:n in, to make a round of inspection to see that the guards were not sleeping at their posts (Middoth 1:2).

Another officer (crrparriyos [strategos]) is also mentioned under the title of Ish hab-birah (,YV3n K"N) - i.e., 'man of the citadel' - the citadel in this case doubtless being the temple proper, and the officer in question the head of the priestly guard (of the inner court). All the gates of the courts were shut at night by the guards, and a special officer was appointed to superintend the operation (Shek. 5:1). The keys of the gates of the inner court were kept by the elders of the particular division of priests on duty for the watch, and, when the divisions were changed, were handed over to the elders of the incoming division. As the morning sacrifice was offered at daybreak it was necessary that the gates should be opened somewhat earlier. At the great festivals (when large preparations for additional sacrifices, etc., had to be made) the gates were opened much earlier - as early as midnight during Passover (Ant. 18:2:2).

(c) Special functionaries connected with public worship. Whilst the general conduct of the sacrificial worship was exercised by the priesthood as a whole (in their courses), certain special duties were performed by permanent officials, who, in many cases, belonged to families which had acquired a hereditary right to fulfil a particular office. A number of these (who were in office during the closing years of the temple) are enumerated in the Mishna (Shekalim 5:1). From this passage we learn that there was an officer 'over the lots' (i.e., the lots cast daily for the allocation of particular offices to the officiating priests), another 'over the seals' (tokens issued to the people, which corresponded to the various kinds of drink-offerings). These 'seals' were handed by the purchasers to another official who was 'over the drink-offerings' and who in return would give to the person tendering one the amount of drink-offering requisite for the particular occasion for which it was wanted (Schurer).

The hereditary offices, confined to certain families, were connected with matters involving special technical skill and knowledge, such as the preparation of the shewbread (family of Garmu), and of the frankincense (family of Abtinas). Other officials mentioned are: a master of the psalmody, a cymbal-player (who gave the signal for the Levites to begin the music), a temple physician, a master of the wells, a herald, a keeper of the veils, and a keeper of the priests garments.

A comparatively large class of officials was the guild of sacred musicians (meshorerim, Q -neo, if/aXrtjiSoi [psaltoodoi], iepo\f/d\rcu [hieropsaltai], v/j.vu5oi [hymnoodoi], KiOapuTrai re Kal v/j.vudol [kaitharistai te kai hymnoodoi]), who formed a hereditary and exclusive order (now Levitical). They were divided into three families (those of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan or Jeduthun ; cp e.g. , 1 Ch. 25), and these again into twenty-four courses of service. Greatest importance was attached to the singing, to which the musical accompaniment was regarded as subordinate. For the instruments employed see MUSIC.

It may be noted that reed-pipes (halilim) were introduced into the choir at the high-festivals (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles), and that the only instruments not assigned to the Levites were the metal trumpets (hatsotseroth), which were regularly blown by priests (esp. to accompany the offering of the daily sacrifice). The place of the Nethinim in Herod's temple seems to have been taken by the hazzanim (C ftn 'servants', 'sextons' : see e.g., Tamid 5:3). Menial offices were also performed by boys of the priestly families (nanarnfl> 'scions of the priesthood', Tamid 1:1, etc.).

We may pass over the details connected with such subjects as admission to the ranks of the officiating priesthood (Schurer, Hist. 2:1:210+), the residence of the priests and Levites (ib. 229), and the sources of the temple revenue (ib. 230+), the consideration of which hardly falls within the scope of this sketch ; but some description must be given of the public worship of the sanctuary, in, at least, its typical features.

The temple services.[edit]

37. The daily offering.[edit]

The regular worship of the temple centred in the daily public offering (rcrn n^iy or simply rcnn) of the prescribed sacrifics, morning and evening. On sabbaths and festivals the number of the sacrifices was increased, and (in particular cases) other ritualistic elements were added ; but essentially the course and sequence of the worship was the same. There were also, of course, multitudes of private sacrifices offered. But here we are mainly concerned with the public worship, which embodies the typical features of the rest. Fortunately a detailed account of the course of the daily offering has been preserved in the Mishna, which devotes a whole tractate to the subject (Tamid), based evidently on sound tradition. The substance of this may here be given.

The service naturally divides itself into three moments:

  • (1) the preliminaries, mainly affecting the priests, and including the slaughter and preparation of the sacrifice (38-39); *(2) the offering of incense and of the sacrifice, accompanied by prayer (40); and
  • (3) the service of praise and thanksgiving (41).
38. The preliminaries.[edit]

1. The priests on duty slept within a chamber of the inner court. Very early those who were desirous of taking part in the sacrificial worship arose and took the baptismal bath so as to be ready for the official summons, which might come at any moment. When the summons came the priests who were ready followed the superintendent through a wicket into the court. They then divided themselves into two parties, one going eastward and the other westward, with lighted torches in their hands (except on sabbaths when the temple was lit up) and met in 'the place of the pancake makers' (i.e., the apartment where the high-priest's daily meal-offering was prepared), and greeted each other with the words 'It is well; all is well!' They then passed to the Hall Gazith (rrun ns:? 1 ?, lit. 'hall of polished stones', where the Sanhedrin also met) and proceeded to cast lots. Altogether four lots - not immediately, but at intervals - were cast during the service, the first to determine who was to cleanse the altar and prepare it.

The mode of casting the lots is thus described by Edersheim (Temple, 122): 'The priests stood in a circle around the president, who for a moment removed the head-gear of one of their number, to show that he would begin counting at him. Then all held up one, two, or more fingers - since it was not lawful in Israel to count persons - when the president named some number, say seventy, and began counting the fingers till he reached the number named, which marked that the lot had fallen on that priest' (so Lightfoot, Temple Service, chap. 9:1, following Maimonides).

The person selected first of all bathed his hands and feet at the brazen laver, which stood between the temple and the great altar, and mounting the altar carried away the ashes in a silver pan. While he descended, the other priests washed their hands and feet at the brazen laver, removed the unburnt sacrifices and debris from the altar, laid on fresh wood, and replaced the unconsumed pieces of the sacrifice. They then all adjourned to the 'Hall of Polished Stones', where the second lot was cast.

During the proceedings above described, which took place in darkness, the only light being the glow of the altar fire, those priests to whom the duty had been assigned, were preparing the baked meal-offering of the high priest in the 'place of the pancake makers'.

The second lot designated the priest on whom it fell, together with twelve others standing next him, to discharge the following duties:-

  • (1) the slaughter of the victim;
  • (2) the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar ;
  • (3) the removing of the ashes from the altar of incense ;
  • (4) the trimming of the lamps on the candlestick;

further, the lot determined who were to carry the various portions of the victim to the foot of the ascent of the altar, viz., who was to carry

  • (5) the head and one of the hind legs;
  • (6) the two forelegs;
  • (7) the tail and the other hind leg;
  • (8) the breast and the neck;
  • (9) the two sides;
  • (10) the entrails;
  • (11) the offering of fine flour;
  • (12) the baked meal-offering (of the high priest); and
  • (13) the wine for the drink-offering.

Immediately after this the president directed inquiries to be made as to whether the time for slaughter had arrived (determined by the approach of dawn when it was visible in the sky up to Hebron). On the signal being given the lamb was brought from the lamb-chamber (o ltWl rus?"?), given some water to drink from a golden bowl, and led to the place of slaughter on the N. side of the altar. At the same time the ninety-three sacred vessels were brought from the utensil-chamber. Meanwhile the two priests to whom the duty had been assigned of cleansing the altar of incense, and trimming the lamps on the candlestick (3 and 4 above) proceeded to the sanctuary, the one with a golden pail (-is), the other with a golden bottle (rs). At this point orders were given (by the elders who had charge of the keys) to open the temple gates, the noise of which (according to the Mishna) was heard at Jericho. The accomplishment of this was heralded by three blasts on the silver trumpets, which gave the signal for the Levites and 'men of the station' (representative Israelites) to assemble, and also announced to the city that the morning sacrifice was about to be offered (for these details see the Gemara on Tamid). At this point also, the great gates leading into the holy place were opened to admit the priests whose duty it was to cleanse the incense-altar and trim the candlesticks, into the sanctuary (see above). The opening of the sanctuary gates was the signal for the actual slaughter of the sacrifice. See Edersheim, Temple, 133, SACRIFICE, 32.

Meanwhile the two priests above referred to had entered the holy place. While the slaughter of the lamb was taking place the first of the priests cleansed the golden altar of incense, putting the burnt coals and ashes into the golden pail ( J7D), and then withdrew, leaving the utensil behind. The second priest, while the blood of the lamb was being sprinkled, proceeded to trim and re-light the lamps of the candlestick.

The procedure was as follows:- Only five of the seven lamps were at this time trimmed - the other two being reserved for a later period of the service. If the two farthest E. were still burning they were left undisturbed, and the trimming and re lighting of the five others was proceeded with. But the central lamp, called the 'western' (because it inclined westward to the most holy place), could only be relighted by fire brought from the altar. If it happened that the two farthest E. were out, they were first of all trimmed and relighted, before the others were attended to. The candlestick was approached by three stone steps, and on the second of these the priest, when this part of his duty was done, deposited the golden bottle (11e3) and withdrew.

Meanwhile the slaughtering of the sacrifice and the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar had been followed by the flaying of the victim, which was cut up into pieces, and the entrails washed upon the marble tables. The pieces were carried by the six allotted priests (each taking one piece) to the altar, while a seventh carried the offering of flour, an eighth the baked meal-offering (of the high priest), and a ninth the wine of the drink-offering. These were all laid at the foot of the altar-ascent, and salted ; and then all the priests assembled once more in the Hall of Polished Stones.

39. The prayers and blessings.[edit]

Here a service of prayer was celebrated, the details of which are, however, not free from ambiguity. The Mishna passage (Tamid 5:1), bearing on the matter, runs as follows:-

'The president said: "Give one blessing"; and the priests blessed and read the ten commandments (and), the Shema (in its three sections). They blessed the people with the three blessings - viz. (the blessing) "True and firm" (3 S l rc.x), (the blessing) 'Service' (rnirj?), and 'the blessing of the priests' (c 3n3n rO"12). And on the sabbath they added one blessing for the outgoing temple course.

The points undetermined here are the following:

  • (a) how far we are to understand that these prayers were said in the hall by the priests alone, and how far in the temple itself by priests and people; and
  • (b) what is meant by 'one blessing' and by 'three blessings'? 1

1 (See L. Rlau, 'Origine et Histoire de la lecture du Schema', REJ 31 [1895] pp. 179-201.)

Regarding (a) it has been usual to suppose that the Shema (i.e. , the three sections of the Law, Dt. 6:4-9, 11:13-21 ; and Nu. 15:37-41 which had to be repeated by each Israelite every day, morning and evening), preceded by a benediction and the ten commandments, was repeated by the priests in the hall, whilst the other prayers mentioned form part of the public service, and come later (so Edersheim, and apparently Schurer). The difficulty about this view is that the benediction "true and firm" belongs to the Shema, which it ought immediately to follow. In any case, if the benediction was said by priests and people publicly, must we not suppose that the Shema itself was recited publicly as well? It is not, perhaps, altogether impossible to regard the priest's service in the hall - i.e., the recitation of the Shema preceded and followed by the benedictions mentioned, including 'service' and 'the priestly blessing' - as a sort of rehearsal, before the solemn part of the sacrificial worship, of what was publicly recited later when the incense ascended from the altar. We may suppose also that the people, during the interval of silent prayer, mentally repeated the same prayers.

The analogous case of the Shemoneh Esreh ('The Eighteen Benedictions') in the modern synagogue, may be cited. This is first of all said by the congregation inaudibly, and then repeated aloud by the reader.

The recital of the ten commandments, which is elsewhere attested as a daily practice, was afterwards discontinued, probably for anti-Christian reasons (cp C. Taylor, Sayings of J. Fathers, (2) Excurs. 4:119).

(b) As to what benediction was recited before the Shema, the Mishna gives no indication, and it was early a matter of dispute (B. Ber. 11b) whether it was that over the creation of light (-HN isv ; the modern form can be seen in Singer's Ed. of Heb.-Eng. Prayer Book, 37+), or that in praise of God's love, known as Ahabah Rabbah ( = 'with abounding love'). According to the generally received opinion, it was the latter that was recited in the temple. In its early form this ran somewhat as follows :

'With abounding (or, according to another version, everlasting) love hast thou loved us, O Lord our God (Jer. 31:3). With

great and exceeding compassion hast thou taken compassion on us (cp Is. 63:9). Our Father, our King, for the sake of our fathers who trusted in thee and whom thou taughtest the statutes of life, be gracious unto us, and be thou also our teacher. Enlighten our eyes in thy law, and make our hearts cleave to thy commandments ; render our hearts one that we may love and fear thy name, and not be ashamed. For in thy holy name we trust ; we rejoice and exult in thy salvation. For thou art the God who works salvation, and thou hast chosen us from all peoples and tongues, and brought us nigh unto thy great name (Selah) in truth, that we give praise unto thee and proclaim thy unity in love. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast chosen thy people Israel in love'. (Cp Jewish Encycl. 1:281, and reff.)

The benediction that followed the Shema , beginning with the words 'true and firm' (a S i DDK), is a thanksgiving to God for various acts of redemption (hence its technical name geulla), and has been much amplified in the later Jewish liturgy. In its earliest form it may not have contained more than the following :

'True and firm (established) it is that thou art we our God, and the God of our fathers; our King and the King of our fathers ; our Saviour and the Saviour of our fathers ; our Maker and the Rock of our Salvation ; our Help and our Deliverer. Thy name is from everlasting, and there is no God besides thee. A new song did they that were delivered sing to thy name by the sea-shore ; together did all praise and own thee as King, and say, Yahwe shall reign who has redeemed Israel'. (See further Zunz, Gottesd. Vortr. d. Judenf (1) 370, (2) 383.)

Of the other two 'blessings', the first, that known as 'service' (rninj, 1 ), was doubtless a thanksgiving for the splendid temple worship, which may have been an earlier form of the present 'Aboda prayer ( = the 17th of the Shemoneh Esreh ; cp Singer, 50-51), and in its earlier form may have run thus :

'Accept, O Lord our God, thy people Israel and their prayer; receive in love and favour both the fire offerings of Israel and their prayer ; and may the service of thy people Israel be ever acceptable unto thee. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who receivest the service of thy people Israel with favour' [for the last clause, see Rashi on Berakh. 11:6].

The 'blessing of the priests' was, doubtless, some form (not, however, the precative form now used in the synagogue = the last of the Shemuneh Esreh) of the well-known priestly blessing (Nu. 6:24-26), in using which within the Temple the priests pronounced the ineffable name (mrr) as written.

After the priests had recited the Shema and the accompanying prayers in the Hall, the third and the fourth lot were taken - the third to determine who should offer the incense in the sanctuary, and the fourth to determine who should lay the various parts of the victim upon the altar. The most important duty of the service that could fall to a priest was that of offering the incense, and only those who had not performed the office before were eligible (except in the rare case when all present had so officiated). Those on whom no lot had fallen were now free to go away, after divesting themselves of the priestly dress.

40. Offering of incense.[edit]

2. The offering of incense and of the sacrifice accompanied by prayer. The incensing priest now took a golden saucer (^3) covered with a lid, containing a smaller saucer (7113) with the incense. An assistant priest then brought some live coal from the great altar in a silver pan (nnnp) which he emptied into a golden pan. This done, both proceeded with another assistant, and with the two who had already dressed the altar and candlestick, into the sanctuary, striking as they passed the instrument called magrephah (see col. 3229), at the sound of which priests hastened to the worship, the Levites to occupy their places in the choir, while the delegates ('stationary men') ranged at the eastern gate of the Temple (=the gate of Nicanor) such of the people as were to be purified that day ('the defiled men').

The two priests who had dressed the altar and the candlestick entered first, the former merely to bring away his utensil, which, after prostrating himself, he did ; while the latter completed the trimming of the lamps, and then, prostrating himself, withdrew with his utensil.

The assistant priest who had the pan of coals emptied them on to the altar of incense, prostrated himself, and withdrew. The other assistant then arranged the incense, and withdrew in like manner. The chief officiating priest was now left alone within the sanctuary, awaiting the signal of the president before burning the incense. When this was given (with the words 'offer the incense'), he emptied out the saucer on to the coals, and the incense ascended in clouds of smoke. At this solemn moment, the people withdrew from the inner court and prostrated themselves, spreading out their hands in silent prayer (cp Rev. 81:3-4, quoted by Edersheim). The incensing priest, also, after prostrating himself for worship, withdrew from the sanctuary. The period of silent prayer was followed (if the conjecture given above is correct) by the recitation of the Shema , with the ten commandments and benedictions set forth above. Others think that only the three 'blessings' (mentioned in Tamid 5:1) were here recited. In any case, the priestly blessing was given in the following manner. The five priests who had been engaged within the Holy Place now proceeded to the steps in front of the Temple, and with uplifted hands, pronounced the priestly benediction. This was pronounced by the leader (probably the incensing priest), the others following audibly after him. As already mentioned, the divine name was on these occasions pronounced. The people also responded : 'Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting'. The offering of the burnt offering was now proceeded with. The chosen priests brought up the various pieces of the victim from the foot of the ascent, and, after placing their hands upon them, threw them on to the altar-fire. When the high priest officiated, he received the pieces from the priests, placed his hands upon them, and threw them on to the altar. The appropriate meal offerings (that of the people, and that of the high priest) were now brought, oiled, salted, and laid on the fire ; and the drink offering was poured out at the foot of the altar.

41. Musical service.[edit]

3. The Service of praise and thanksgiving. - Hereupon the music of the temple began. The choir of Levites, to the accompaniment of instrumental music, sang the psalm of the day, which was divided into three sections. At the close of each section, a body of priests blew three blasts on the silver trumpets, and the people prostrated themselves in worship. The singing of the psalm closed the morning service, and the private sacrifices were proceeded with.

The evening sacrifice (which, according to the law, was to be offered 'between the two evenings' - i.e., in the evening twilight) was at this period offered early in the afternoon, about 3 o'clock. It was in all respects exactly similar to that of the morning, save that incense was offered after the burnt oftering instead of before it, and the lamps in the sanctuary were not trimmed, but simply lighted. The priests on whom the lots had fallen again officiated in the evening, except the incensing priests. For this office another lot was taken.

The daily psalms were the following:

  • first day, 24;
  • second, 48;
  • third, 82;
  • fourth, 94;
  • fifth, 81;
  • sixth, 93;
  • on the sabbath, 92.
42. The sabbath, and festivals.[edit]

On the sabbath and festivals the same daily sacrifices were offered, only increased. Thus on the sabbath the sacrifice was doubled, and so on. The essential features, however, were much the same. [For details, see FEASTS, SABBATH, and the works cited below.]

G. H. B.

43. Bibliography.[edit]

The literature of the subject is immense. The older books are given in Bahr (Der Salomonische Tempel) and other writers ; only the more important modern works can be mentioned here.

(a) General: The Archaeologies of Jahn, Saalschutz, Scholz, Schegg, Haneberg, de-Wette-Rabiger, Keil, de Visser, Benzinger, Nowack ; the articles s.v. 'Temple' in PRE (Merx), BL (Diestel), Riehm's HWB, Ency. Brit. (9) (by W. R. Smith ; it has been freely used in the preparation of the present article), Hastings DB (T. W. Davies) ; the commentaries on Kings by Keil, Thenius, Klostermann, Benzinger, Kittel ; Fergusson, The Temple of the Jews, London, 1878

(b) Text and Literary Criticism: The commentaries on Kings (above); Wellhausen in Bleek, Einl. (4 ); Stade 'Der Text des Berichts uber Salomos Bauten' in ZATW, 1883, pp. 129-177.

(c) Topographical: The results of modern survey and excavation are given in the PEF vol. 'Jerusalem' (London, 1884) and in the accompanying atlas. See also Robinson, BR (2); Tobler, Topographie Jerusalems, 1853-54 ; Fergusson, Topography of Jerusalem, 1847; Thrupp, Ancient Jerusalem, 1855; De Vogue, Le Temple de Jerusalem, 1864 ; Rosen, Das Haram von Jerusalem u. der Tempelplatz des Moria, 1866; Schick, Beit el Makdas; oder, der alte Tempelplatz, 1887 : id., Die Stiftshutte, der Tempel in Jerusalem u. der Tempelplatz der Jetztzeit ; Adler, Der Felsendom u. d. heutige Grabeskirche zu Jerusalem, 1873; Socin-Benzinger in Baedeker's Pal (5)

(d) Solomon's Temple : Of older works may be mentioned those of Bh. Lamy, De Tabernaculo Foederis, de sancta civitate Jerusalem et de Templo ejus, Paris, 1720 ; A. Hirt, Der Tempel Salomos, Berlin, 1809; Fr. v. Meyer, id., Stuttgart, 1839. A more modern phase of discussion may be said to begin with Bahr, Der Solomonische Tempel mit Berucksichtigung seines Verhaltnisses z. h. Architektur ueberhaupt, 1848. See further B. Stade, GI 1:311+; H. Pailloux, Monographie du temple de Salomon, Paris, 1885; F. O. Paine, Solomon's temple and Capital, 1886; Th. Friedrich, Tempel u. Palast Salomos, 1887 ; O. Wolff, Der Tempel von Jerusalem u. seine Maase, 1887 ; E. C. Robins, The Temple of Solomon, 1887 ; Guinand, Monographic du Temple de Salomon, ib88 ; Perrot-Chipiez, Le Temple de Jerusalem et la Maison du Bois-Liban restitues apres Ezechiel et le livre des Rois, 1889 ; L. Feuchtwang in Zt. f. bildende Kunsf, new ser. 2, 1891, p. 141+; H. Becker in Wiener allgem. Bauzeitung, 1893, hft. 1-4; Perrot-Chipiez, Judaea.

(e) Ezekiel's Temple: Cornill's edition of text ; the commentaries of Smend, Cornill, Bertholet ; also Toy in SBOT; Bottcher, Proben A Tlicher Schrifterklarung (1833), id. Neue Aehrenlese; Balmer-Rinck, Des Propheten Ezekiel Gesicht vom Tempel, 1858; Kuhn in St. Kr., 1882; H. Sulley, The Temple of Ezekiel's Prophecy, 1889: Stade, GI 2:47+.

(f) Zerubbabel's Temple: De Moor and Imbert, in Le Museon, 1 and 8 ; the commentaries of Ryssel and Bertholet on Ezra and Nehemiah.

(g) Herod's Temple : A tolerably complete catalogue of the older literature on Herod's temple will be found in Haneberg, Die religiose Altertumer der Bibel, 260+; for the modern literature see Schurer GJV (3) 1:323-324. We mention here : Mishna tractate Middoth, with the commentary of Obadja Bartenora in Surenhusius, 5; ET in Barclay, The Talmud, 255+, Moses Maimonides in npin T [Yad .... [second word might be tanach]] (discussion of the Talmudic details as to the temple and its furniture, in Ugolini's Thes. 8) ; J. Lightfoot, Descriptio templi Hierosolymitani (also in Ugolin. Thes. 9); Hirt, Ueber die Bauten Herodes des Grossen in Abh. Beri. Akad. : philol.-hist. classe, 1816-1817, pp. 1-24 ; Haneberg, Altertumer, 266-336; Spiess, Das Jerusalem des Josephus, 1881, pp. 46+; id. Der Tempel des Jerusalem wahrend des letzten Jahrhunderts seines Bestandes nach Josephus, 1887 ; Schurer, Riehm, HWB, 1663, +: Block, Entwurf eines Grundrisses vom Herodianischen Tempel nach Talmudischen Quellen bearbeitet : Hildesheimer, 'D. Beschreibung d. Herod. Tempels im Tractate Middoth u. b. Fl. Josephus' in Jahresber. d. Rabb. Semimars f. d. orthodoxe Judentum, 1876-7 ; Lewin, The Siege of Jerusalem by Titus, 1863.

(f) Temple worship. In addition to the works cited above, see esp. Schurer, GVI (3), 24 (bibliography) ; SYNAGOGUE, 11.

I. B. (1-33, 43);

G. H. B. (34-42).