Thus in I Cor. 1228, Paul declares tha.t 'God hath set in th; Church first apostles secondly prophets, thirdly teachers. . . In his enumeration bf gifts in Rom. 126-8 we have the order ' prophecy ' 'ministry' (6iaroviav), 'he that teacheth,' '$e, that exhorteth,' and so fyt;. And in Eph. 411, 'apostles, propheth ' evangelists pastors (woLp6vayaF) and teachers' are am,& the gifts of t h r i s t to his Church. In Acts 13 I we read of 'prophets and teachers' as belonging to the church in Antioch. These notices taken together suggest a class of men endowed with a spiritual gift for the instruction of the Church, and taking rank next after the apostles and the prophets. Their function probably consisted in a Christian exposition of the OT scriptures and a n application of the Gospel to the needs of common life, and stood in contrast with the enthusiastic utterances of the prophets. The vagueness of the term 'teachers might suggest that it included any who gave instruction, and that the word denoted a function rather than a permanent office. It is quite likely that this was so a t first. T h e use of the word as a title, however, is assured by the evidence of the Didach!, where, although teachers are far less prominent than prophets, they are joined with them as a cognate class, and honour is claimed for ' the bishops and deacons ' on the ground that 'they too minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers.' In the African church the title remains to the beginning of the third century, and is found in conjunction with that of 'presbyter.' Thus w e have in the Passion o Sf. PerpPtua f (ch. 13) a mention of 'Aspasius the presbyter-doctor' (c Cypr. c j . 2 ) About the same tune Origen as a layman at t f e head 9. of the Christian school in Alexandria affords the most illustrious example of the exercise of the gift of teaching apart from the regular orders of the ministry. Of theFe three grades of what was pre-eminently ' the ministry of the word,' in contradistinction to official administration, each in its turn ceased to exist as a separate order. The apostles are the first to disappear. The Twelve and Paul passed away by death, and in the next generation the title was already becoming sacred to t h e m ; the apostles of the DiduchC are a survival, destined immediately to disappear. The prophets on the contrary are still in full power, a t any rate in certain localities. Yet even they show premonitory symptoms of decay; and the failure of the Montanistic movement to re-establish them as a permanent order in the Church led to the final disappearance of prophecy as a n institution. The teachers fulfilled a ministry which would naturally grow in importance as the authoritative voices of apostles and prophets were ceasing to be heard, and as the inroad of heresy increased the demand for the grace of true teaching. That they too ceased to be a distinct class in the Church was due to the fact that their duties were taken over more and more by the administrative order, which gathered round its chief representatives many of the functions and much of the prestige of apostles, prophets and teachers alike. C p MINISTRY, 5 39.

as well as of I K. 7 4 5 3 (with 11 in Ch.). Betah turns out to be nearer the truth than Tebah. The Sam. passage should run thus, ' A n d from Rehoboth, the city of Hadad, king David took brass in great abundance,' while in the latter the name of the city It would seem that should be ' Rehoboth-jerahmeel.' 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 . 1 2 2 6 8 , was not ' Rabbath' hut 'Rehoboth (of the Jerahmeelites). ' Had the redactor who is responsible for the present form of the narrative in z S.8 3 8 a conception such as is geographically possible of the geography of David's 'Aramzean' campaign? I n order to answer in the affirmative we should have to emend ' from Betah and from Berothai' (aiqni m z p ) into 'from Tebah and f r o m Ta66ur' ( m y n ? g ~ ) . Tebah might be the Tubihi of the $Am. Tablets (127, 5 , 14, etc.), the Dibhu of the Li$t of Thotnies 111. (Z?P(~), ; Sayce, 543 Acad., Feb. 21,' i d g j ; W M M As. u. Eur: 173396). In the 'Travels pf',:an Egyptian' 109 111 ; Brugsch, Gesch. Eg. 340) Kadesh on the Orontes, Tubihi, Tihis (see T HAHASH), and Dapuru appear as neighbouring places. We now turn to I K. 745647, the difficulties of which neither Renzinger nor Kittel appear to have altogether removed ; the help which the former scholar derives from BL $ illusory. It should be noticed that the current rendering, of burnished brass,' for amn nwn], puts an undue strain on the root-meaning of p)m. We cannot pause to investigate Is. 18 z 7 Ezek. 21 x4-16 [9-11] hut may suggest that even the RV must not be followed blindiy. The key to I K. Z.C. (and the \I 2 Ch.416J) is furnished by I Ch. 1886, which shows that the original narrative of Hiram the artificer stated that the brass came from a city of Hadad, king of Misur. In short, the P)mnof K. and the p i x of Ch. come respectively from n ! gn and nixmg, and the second of these readings is the better. yjj> and i i i ? nwhich follow are corrupt forms of a dittographed iNnni3 (see J O R U A N ,

D 2 [ZI).

The result is that


K. 746


Ch. 4 17 should run thus,

O brass from Rehoboth-jeremeel did Jerahmeel f

[Le.. * H i r a m ' ; see HAMMELECH] cast them, in Maacath-aram, between Maacath and Zarephath ' (cp SCCCOTH, Z ARETHAN). An imaginary place ' Tebah ' has in fact usurped a part of the honour which rightly belongs to REHOBOTH [g.v.]. C p the commentaries.
T. K. C.

perhaps for Tobliyyahu, ' YahwB is gracious to me,' 38 ; TABAAI [B], TABEA~AC [A], TABEHA [L]), a Merarite doorkeeper ( I Ch. 26 11). But (in spite of 6 ) the name should possibly be read w $ a (perhaps from wm misread i i l h ~ ;) cp


TOBIJAH, I, also TABEEL.* S. A. C. TEBETH (IlJQ), Esth. 2 16. See MONTH, § 2. TEHAPHNEHES


Ezek. 30 18.


TEBAH (WQ; TABEK [AD], -x [LI), a son of N AHOR by Reurnah (a corruption of Jerahmeel). Gen. 2224. The names in the Nahorite genealogy (uu.20-24) make a southern ( ; . e . . N. Arabian) connection very plausible. Against this we must not quote 'Aram,' for ' Aram ' (i.e . , Jerahmeel) is p i m a r i b a N. Arabian name. T h e brethren of ' Tebah ' are G G a m (rather, Naham. 1 and 2 being confounded), Tahash ( L e . , Hushah=Cushah?), and Maacah. Nor can we safely urge that BETAHin 2 S. 8 8 (which, if @ may be trusted, is miswritten for Tebd?) or Tibhath in I Ch. 188 (for which Pesh. has ~ J U ) was a city of Hadad-ezer, king of Zobah ; for it is maintained elsewhere (Z OBAH ) 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 We can 'Hadad, ben Rehobroth], king of Misyr.' now for the first time, as it seems, give an altogether satisfactory explanation of 2 S . 8 8 and the I/ I Ch. 188,

J. A. R.



as if 'supplication,'

74 ; c p

O S 1 6 6 6 BAN& x ~ p i c ) ,father of I R - NAHASH ,

If RECAH (p.w.) is rightly corrected to Recab, Tehinnah should almost certainly be n p , KIN AH^ (Josh. 1 5 ~ 2 )ie., ~ a settlement of the Kenites. See IR-NAHASH.
1 In 2 S. Z C n ~ and *nix are both fragmentary representa.. 3 tions of ni>ni(Rehohoth), and in I Ch. 2.c. p i nnxu represents $Nani* nl>m(Rehoboth-jerahmeel). For the latter emendation, cp probably miswritten in Judg. IO5 for hinnq?. Note, however, that @BNAL's &AW&V implies niin3, which is virtually nilni, a correction of nyu; p is not represented. Cp i MEROM. 2 According to Cheyne, the name is probably either from h r n , 'a man of T UBAL ' (q.v.), or, if 17' is correct, from h n $Nnni?, Tubal-jerah[meel] (cp ~ * i )Sxln, ' Tnhal-kain '). Cp ZEDEKIAH, li I . 3 When J had become n, it was natural for a pious scribe to prefix n, and so get the meaning 'supplication.'
. T

4 d


[BI,B A N & [Alp






Pesh. has, ‘he begat Ja‘azer,’ for which reading there is no obvious reason. T.K. C.


a Babylonian place-name, the right form ought to be Tel-abub (TiCeb,ubi). Ahiibu ( #flood-storm’ or ‘stormflood’?) is the proper Assyrian word Tor the Deluge TEILTREE ( i K ) , Is.613 AV, RV TEREBINTH l 13, n. I) ; Til-abubi, as a Babylonian [see D ELUGE, (4.n. ). name, might mean either a mound of ruins so ancient TEKOA or TEKOAEI (fip3, n@’,p?,’ hardly= (cp &ip n i I i n ) that it was called a Deluge-mound, or ’ settlement,’ from 2/yj)n, to strike [tent-pegs intq the m e that had been produced hy the rushing in (possible z), gentilic Tekoite ([PI’Ylp~, at any time) of a cyclone from the Persian Gulf. There ground] ; f j e ~ w a is a common phrase in the Assyrian inscriptions, ‘ I &KW(E)[THC3), ‘woman of Tekoa’ (iVYliX7, ~ B K U made (or, destroyed) the city like a tiZ-adubi.’ BITIC [BA] -KOYI. [L]), a city S. of Bethlehem, on the If, however, the view advocated in P ROPHET, § 27, is correct bprders of the wilderness to which it gave name (12’fD and Ezekiel together with Jehoiachin and his fellow-exile: UlPn, 2 Ch.2020, THN E P H M O N e., I Macc.933). resided in N. Arabia, we must look out for another explanation. And it so happens that this view (the ‘Jerahmeelite theory’) Assuming that the same place is always meant, we find supplies the only key to the manifold corruptions of the single it mentioned as the residence of a ‘ wise woman ’ who passage in which Tel-abib occurs (see Crii. Bih.). The text of interceded for Absalom ; as one of the towns fortified Ezek. 3 14J which results from the application of this key runs by Rehoboam; and as the birthplace of the prophet thus : (14) ‘And (the) spirit lifted me up and took me to Maacath of Amos ( z S. 142 I Ch.224 z Ch. 2020 Jer.61 Am. 11). Jerahmeel, and the hand of Yahwk upon me was strong. (15) It is also mentioned in Josh. 1559 @BAL (Oexw) where it And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-arab [Ishmael, by heads the list of eleven towns wanting in M T (Tekoa, the river of Jeremeel], and to Tel-asshur [Jerahmeel, Is\mae!], Ephrathah which is Bethlehem, Peor [see under ETAM, and there for seven days I dwelt among them astonished. The text which underlies 6 i only slightly different; pcrdwopop s I , Etam, Kulon [ q . ~ . ] ,Tatam, Sores [see SEIR, ] 21, =D!=hDnY ; r a l 1 r e p ~ j h B o v = ~ 1 D N 1 = l i W H ~ Probably we ~~~i. Karem [ q . ~ . ] Galem [q.~.],Bether [ q . ~ . and Manocho , ] may restore it thus in v. 15 : [see M ANAHATH . 31). It comes also into an obscure ‘And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-jerahrneel and genealogy in I Ch. 45-8 where Tekoa (cp I Ch. 224) Tel-asshur [Ishmael, by the river of Jerahmeel, Ishmael]. figures as son of ASSHUR and (if for CoZ we ought to Thus, combining MT and 6, we are led to suspect that Tel-arab and Tel-jerahmeel were two names for the same place. read Tekoa) as father of Anub and 2obehah.and the We know of a ‘valley( x q ) of Jerahmeel’ (see SALT, VALLEV families of Aharhe14 (d&b#~ot P~XU,!?) son of Harum OF ) and also, probably, of a ‘ wsdy’ (in,) of ‘Arab.’3 We also (i.e., Jearim ; see Still assuming that there is find a Tel-melah or Tel-jerahmeel in Ezra-Neh. (see TELonly one Tekoa, we may identify it with the modern MELAH) and a a probable eqiivalent of Tel-asshur Tel-harsha s or Tel-khhdr (see TEL-HA-HA). Very possibly,’ however, a Teku‘a, which lies six miles S . of Bethlehem, on an further result awaits US. $n, wherever it occurs in compound elevated hill, not steep, but broad a t the top, and names, is simply a short way of writing 5Iin, T UBAL (q.v.). See covered with ruins to the extent of four or five acres. C r i f . Bi6. T. K. C. These consist chiefly of the foundations of houses built TELAH (nk$ Bahsec P I p Baht! [AI, Baha C I , L) of squared stones, some of which are bevelled. The mentioned in the list of the b’ne Ephraim (I Ch. 725). middle of the space is occupied by the ruins of a Greek There are, however, several corrupt repetitions in this section church. The site commands extensive prospects (cp (I Ch. 7 zofi), and it is probable that n5n is a corruption of AMOS, § 3), and towards the E. is bounded only by n$niV; cp Wellhausen, PYoZ.P) 214. See EPHRAIM, 12, # the level mountains of Moab. Before and during the S HUTHELAH. Crusades Tekoa was well inhabited by Christians ; but TELAIH (n’&p), I S. 15 4. and Telam (Heb. in 1138 A.D. it was sacked by a party of Turks from &2), I S. 278 RVmg.. See TELEM. beyond the Jordan, and nothing further is known of it till the seventeenth century, when it lay desolate, as it TELASSAR (>&[K1$7l; BafcBaN [Bl, B a h a c c a p has ever since done. [AL] in Ki., i v xhpq, Bscpa [N* (sup ras e zD fort o)], -e [E], It is however by no means certain that all the references to Bepau [HC], Baipa8 LA], Oac [palo [Ovid], Barpav [QJ ; fhZrcsar). ‘Tekoa’ mean the same place. In Jer. 6 I for instance a more Telassar is named in z K. 1 9 12 (Is. 37 12) as the locasoutherly place is meant (see TEL-HARS~A).is cdntended It tion of the ‘children of Eden.’ The places Gozan, elsewhere(see PROPHET, 58 26, 40 ; Z APHON) that it is a Jerahmeelite invasion that is most probably apprehended ; the places Haran, and Rezeph named before Telassar follow a n mentioned should be sought in the Negeb. Amos too was hardly order from E. to W. This suggests that ’ the children a native of the Tekoa, S. of Bethlehem (see PKOPHET, 0s IO, 35). of Eden ’ once dwelt nearer to Palestine (Jiidah?) than And in I Ch. 4 4 J , just as ‘Beth-lehem’ is not the place 1 : Judab so called but Beth-’erahmeel iu the Negeb, so Tekoa Rezeph, which was W. of the Euphrates. T h e conquest is more southerly than the test ’known place of that name. of these cities is ascribed to the kings, my fathers,’ T. K. C. who had preceded Sennacherib. TEL-ABIB (1’3K ; M E T ~ W P O C , see below ; T h e identification of ‘ the children of Eden’ with the [ad] acemum novarumf r u p m ) , the seat of a colony of Bit Adini of the Assyrian Inscriptions already made Jewish exiles ( E z e k . 3 q t ) . To a Hebrew ear the by Schrader (KATP),327) has more or less difficulty name meant Mound (hill) of ears of corn’ (cp A BIB). (cp BETH-EDEN) according to the situation in which As, however, Friedrich Delitzsch has pointed out,6 if it this widely scattered Aramaic folk are supposed to be located. T h e Blt Adini of the earlier times formed a 1 The ending is hardly locative : nyipn in 2 S. 142 is probably powerful race inhabiting the district S . of Edessa. a corruption of ??!Jp n*p ‘ Beth-maacah’ (= Beth-jerahmeel, over Haran between the Balikh (on the E. of which lay see S AUL $4) a ‘wise woman ’ of which place is mentioned in Gozan) and the Euphrates. But it also included a wide connectidn wi;h Joab in 2 S. 20 1 5 3 Very possibly too, we may strip on the W. bank of the Euphrates, in which lay explain y i p itself as a primitive popular corruption of n?> many large cities. This country made strong resist3Jp ance to Asur-ngsir-pal ( K B 1 6 4 , 102, 104, I I ~ ) ,but The variants are : 2 S. 14 2 Bcrcouc [L], I Ch. 2 24 Barwr [AI, 4 5 B P K W ~ [A], Jer. 6 f Am. 1 I BeKOus. ’ was finally conquered by Shalmaneser 11. (858 B .c.). 3 The variants are : a S. 23 26 BE& [L], I Ch. 1 28 irBsro [BN], 1 Shalmaneser changed many of the city names, among Bcroc [AI, 279, Betcoverwp [Bl, Neh 3527 Berwrrw [HAL], others giving to Nappigi (Mabbaig, Bambyke) the name -w [B and H in ZI271, Brrotral [L v. 271. . of Lita-ASur ( K B 1 1 3 2 156 162). There was also 4 Surely sninx is one of the numerous distortions of $ N D ~ * . Griineisen’s pointing h?l7! (Ahnenculfus, 257), leads to no 1 Del. Ass. HWB, s.2’. ‘abnhu’; Schr. KATP)234(zg), 262(1). satisfactory explanation.. Cp @L, 6 s rpi) apanqh A.6+$oir pqxafl. 2 It will be understood that the words in 11are presumed to he 6 ‘ Tel ’ (Ass. tiZ[fIn), ir ancient, as In modern times formed glosses. Arabia, Ishmael, Jerahmeel, and Asshur were in fact, the first part of the name of many Babylonian places sitdted near as in the present writer’s view the phenomena of the Psalms adundantly show, practically s;nonymous to the later writers. a mound of ruins of a previous settlement (cp $5, Dt.13 17 [16] Josh. 8 28). Cp TEL-HARSHA, TEL-MELAH, TELASSAR 3 In Am. 6 14 nnn is probabl a corruption of Maacath (a and Jerahmeelite name) and 3?!p: &I of 37Y ’I = D’?lY ’> (so + (Tel-Asshur). 6 CuZwrr Bi6.-LexikonF),go1 a read) in Is.15 7. See Cn?.Ei6.






a branch of the Aramaic Bit Dakkari who lay E. of the Tigris in Babylonia. A third settlement of the Bit

emended accordingly.' This, however, implies inadequate criticism of the proper name n57in (Havilah), and the same objection may he made to Winckler, when he emends n5,rnn in 15 7 into oiryn, in accordance with

Adini is associated by Tiglath-pileser 111. with Ifaur5n, 'Xzaz, and =\ribua, in Syria, which may possibly be the 'house of Eden' referred to in Amos 1 5 (Winckler, 278.2 AOF 1104). Whether the children of Eden had their -4 place called 'OIPni is highly problematical, and a better home in Telassar and were now deported elsewhere, or way out of the critical difficulty ought to he found. As is whether they had been deported to 'I'elassar will depend ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n h b like ~ r ni'2n in I s. ~ ~ 23 ~ on the identifications adopted. 11; I S 27s yfAap in ycAap+(m)oup of E A has been thought to : It is tempting to recognise in Telassar the TII-ASSuri ' represent Telam, which indeed a number of cursives attest. But of Tiglath-pileser 111. (Tiele, B A G 231) ; and O ESarf T may he a corruption of r. Klostermann ingeniously extracts lbsn h 'the wadyofBasoa'(q.v.). Cp Ex$T 10239 [18gg]. , haddon ( K B 2 128 144). But these passages show that there were two different places of that name. The ! T. IC. C. first was certainly in Babylonia ; but there is no indicaTELEM ; T E ~ H M [B], T e ~ ~ H[KAL]), a M tion that the Bit Adini were settled there. The second door.keeper, 10 24. I Esd. 9 25 T~~~~~~~ (ro~pauqF was inhabited bv an Aramaic DeoDle. the Bit Parnaki. 1 IBA1). See TELEII. I : and CD T A L n i o N .













the Bit Parna'ki were a branch of th"e Bi; kdini, there is nothing to connect this Til-ASSuri with ' t h e children of Eden. * On the one hand, TLI ASSnri 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 corriiption of Lita-ASur, or of Til-baSer& 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 I view of SENNACHERIB,5. ' Rezeph' and 'the b'ne Eden in Telassar' are easily explicable if it is a king of the N. Arabian +hhur whose victories are referred to in 2 Ki. 1912 (Is. 37 12). Eden ' was a district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see PARADISE, 0 7), and Tel-ashhur is a very probable name, if we should not K. c.1 rather read Tubal-ashhur. See TELHARSHA.-T. C. H. W. J.

O ~ A a a p ~ u [L] ; Neh. a p v u a [BNI, O a A a p u a [AI, OaAAapqs [Ll ; ua I Esd., TIIELERSAS [EVJ, Behepuac [B], B~Aum.5[A], BaAaa [ x a r p v u a l &I).

A place from which, according to the great postexilic list, came certain families of doubtful origin (Ezra259 = Neh. 761 = I Esd. 536t). The name in Hebrew might mean ' mound of the forest ' ; but &YSU (or & U Y S U ) in Assyrian means ' mountain - range,' whence Friedrich Delitzsch4 proposes to explain as if til .S, ' hill in the mountains.' &i
If, however we adopt the theory (cp PROPHET, $3 27) that the Israelites wdo returned from exile came chiefly from the Jerahnieelite region in N. Arabia (including the Negeb) we shall have to seek for some other explanation. In this cahe, woln will almost certainly be miswritten forlnus)rc--i.e., Ashhur. ! I Ch. 2 24 Ashhur is called the father of Tekoa, where n Tekoa ' is probably not the modern Tekii'a, a hrs. S of Ben; . jamin, but some place farther south ; cp Jer. 6 I where ' Tekoa is mentioned with ' Beth-haccerem,' or rather ' Beth-jerahmeel,' and both places are near the land of Zaphon which apparently included Kadesh and the sacred mountain of Yahw& (see ZAPHON). On the possible identity of Tel-ashhur with the so called Telassar, see TEL-MELAH. T K C . . .


EALOTH z4 ; This may be the T ELAIM (cm$?), or TEL-MELAH (n$O $f ; eEPMEhB8 P I , 8eAperhaps rather (Telam), where Saul mustered his M E A ~ X [L], MEXEA, [A]), a place from which, according warriors before fightingwiththeAmalekites. IS. 1 5 4 ( M T to the great post-exilic list, came certain families which assumes the article, 'y ; cp Vg. p a s i ugnos). Apparcould not prove their Israelitish origin, Ezra 25g=Neh. ently there was an ancient clan called Telem, with 761 (BBPMEhE8 [KIP&AM. P I , 8shMMshaX [ALI)=1 which name the rea1 or assumed personal names Esd. 536 (THERMELETH ; eepMsA68 [AI, &A[EV] T ELEM ( ~.b g ) , TALMON (pnh), and even TALMAI Meher [L]). The name is generally supposed to be . Babylonian, and since, in this case, the explanation ' hill (&) should undoubtedly be irouped, and the importof salt ' is impossible, Friedrich Delitzsch (CaZwev Bib. ance of which may be estimated from the fact that Lex.(*) 901) would give the name as TiZ--ma&&i, ' Talmai ' stands beside ' Sheshai ' and ' Ahiman ' ' sailors' hill,' on the analogy of T EL - ARIB (q.n.). (corruptions probably of ' Cushi ' and ' Jerahmeel ') as or If, however, we follow the analogy of the names representing the primitive population of Kirjath-arba n$3? ">,and nip. l'p (see SALT, VALLEY OF, and S ALT , (mther K. -%ab), otherwise called Hebron (rather C ITY OF) Tel-melah will mean ' hill of Jerahmeel,' and will Rehoboth). Observe too that ' Talmon ' occurs in become pHrt of the ividence for the theory (cp PROPHET P 27) I Ch. 9 17 beside Ahiman ' (Jerahmeel) as the name of that the israelitish exiles who returned came mainl; from a family of SZlirim ( E V ' porters '), or rather 'uS%im the region called Jerahmeelite in N. Arabia (including the Negeb). The names with which Tel-melah is grouped are Tel(Asshurites), and that n h y l (Bealoth), beside which o h harsha and Cherub-addan-immer or ' Cheiub, Addan (Ezra) or (Telem) occurs in Josh. 1524, is probably miswritten for Addon (Neh.), and Immer ' (l@Ni, Neh.). Two of these-viz, the ancient clan-name 'Tubal (see TLJRaL-CAIN). Cheruhand Immer-at once become intelligible ifwemayventure The place called Telani must have been situated not to set aside the prejudice of a Babylonian c o n n e k o n ; both are of very far from the $nj or wady which separated the Addan the same type as numerous corruptions o f ' Jerahmeel. Judahite from the Amalekite territory. For the first or Addon, too, is very possibly N. Arabian, and in spite of the initial N in Ezra-Neh., may be another form of iiy-ie., the N. niovemrnt of Saul was towards the cities (n.5 : Arabian ' Eden,' which is very possibly referred to ( I ) in the Pws 7 i j v x6Xewv) of Amalek on the other side (read story of Paradise (see P ARADISE , 7), and (2) in the otherwise ilyi) of the wady ( v . 5 ) . Possibly there was near it a enigmatical phrases ' Beth-eden ' (Amos 1 5) aiid 'the h'ne Eden Probably w' who were in Telassar' (2 K. 19 IZ=IS. 37 12). place called Gilgal ( a popular corruption of Jerahmeel),for should read, for ' Cherub-addan-immer,' ' Eden of Jerahmeel g H A L in I S. 154 gives 'in Gilgal' (8v I'aXyBXors) instead (Ssnnl, i y y ) 'cherub' and 'immer' being variants for the W e can hardly venture to go further, of ' in Telam.' fuller and trnkr furm Jerahmeel. TEL-HAHSHA (4.v.) probably and suppose that Telam was regarded as itself the boundary between Judahite and Amalekite land. This 1 H. P. Smith accepts C2.g in 27 8, hut not in 15 7 ; Driver supposition has indeed actually been made, 'and the holds himself in suspense. We., Bu., and Ki. read o\*oo, cr test of I S. 157 ( M T n h a ) and 278 ( M T ohyn) been &an, in both places. Lohr resists the temptation to change ;

tween ZIPH

@$e), city in (Josh. 15 mentioned bea the Negeb, and B TEAEM [AL],




TheoZ., July rgor, p. 439. I t is also possible however, that rahaAors IS a very early alteration of T e p p , thd better known place being substituted for the more obscure.
1 See Ancer. Jozrr. o f

Klost. retains MT in 157,but strikes out a new path in 278. Musri 2 (MVG, 1898, 4, 6. ) 3 Gl&er'needlessly emends n$>n in I S. into n$>n. 4 He6. Lung. 1 6 3 : C u l v e r Bib.-Lex.P) gor (' Waldhiigel' can hardly be right ; cp Ass. W W B 293 6).



=Tel-ashhur, and notice aga,in the significant phrase ‘the h’nE Eden who were in Telassar, where Telassar the meaning of wbicb is otherwise scarcely a soluble probleh, is probably a (end). corruption of Tel- or Tubal-ashbur. See TELASSAR T. K . C. TEMA and once K@ [Job 6191 ; 8 A l M A N [BKAQI’L]), son of Ishmael (Gen. 2515 8 ~ [DE] ; I . Ch. 130). The name appears as early as Jeremiah ( 2 5 23 ; Be. [Wa] 6wpear [KX]), also in a prophetic fragment on Arabia( ‘landofTema,’Is. 21 14). In boththese passages it is associated with D EDAN (4.v.).’ In Job 619 the


list. In the list of ancient Edomite kings we find a king called ‘ Husham, of thelandof theTemanites(Gen. 3634).’ In Ezek. 25 13 the prophet threatens destruction to Edom ‘from Teman even to Dedan.’ Laterwriters use ‘ Teman‘ as a poetical synonym for ‘ Edom ’ (Amos 1 1 2 [on date, (Kg’n, see AMOS, 5 91. Ob. g [cp. Jer. 49221, Jer. 4920 Hab. 3 3 Bar. 3 2 2 J ) : but in Jer. 4 9 7 we seem to find Tenian recognised as the name of a district. ‘ I s 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 II etc. ). I Eliphaz the Edomite ‘ ‘ caravans of Tema ’ ( 6 a ~ p a v w r are parallel to the ) ’ companies of Sheba.’ For its geographical position would have been an insufficient description : ‘ Temanite ’ must refer to the district best known for proverbial see I SHMAEL, 4 [6]. In the cuneiform inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser 111. its people are spoken o as ( a h ) wisdom. As to the locality intended by a Teman,’ Ezek. f 2513 (already quoted) entitles us to assume that Teman Te-mai-ie., belonging to the city TEma’u (cp was in the N. (NE.), for the land of Dedan was Schrader, K G F 2 6 1 8 ; Del. Par. 3018). Its modern certainly to the S. (SE.) of the land of Edom. (This T h e explorations of Euting have name is Tuirnd. suggests a comparison of the name with Jamin =Jerahbrought to light some important Aramaic inscriptions, meel. ) See Amos 1x2, where Bozrah is mentioned as dating from before the Persian period, which testify to the capital of Teman. Bozrah being situated in the the existence of a highly developed culture among the district of Gebal (Ps. 8 3 8 ) , northward from Petra, we ancient Arabs of Tema (see A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE , 5 2). Special mention is made in one of them of the N p n ?&, ‘ the may perhaps venture to regard the district of Teman as gods of Tema, one of the most important of whom bore the having much the same limits a s the later district of name ~ $ (CIS, 2 113 114), cp >io nsr the name of one of his 3 Geball in spite of the fact that Teman and Bozrah in ; Amos1 12 are the names, not merely of a district and priests (‘ O h saves,’ a name perhaps I1 to the biblical h!’@) see Baeth. Beifr. BOA, and cp ZALMUNNA. its chief town, but of the land of Edom and its capital.

TEMAH (nvq),the

family name of a company of

(post-exilic) Nethinim : Ezra 2 53 (8Fpa[a] [BAL], AV T HAMAH) =Neh. 7 55 (qpae [BK], Bqpa [AI, Bepaa [Ll, AV TAMAH)= Esd. I 632 T HOMOI , RV T HOMEI (ooperL [BI, eopcL [AI, [LI).


($+n,J In’, ‘ what is on the right hand’?

reman was originally the name of a clan and district (cp N AMES , 5 5 ) 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. 3 6 I I 15 [8aprav E] I Ch. 136). In Gen. 36 42 (I Ch. 153) Teman is counted among the ‘ dukes ’ ( ’aZZz@h),or clans (‘lkfh), EDOM( q . . 5 4), not, however, heading the of

-id., ‘south’; Barpav [BADQL] occasionally Ofp. in KADEQ : Vg. Thenran, except Ezek. 25 I; Hab. 3 3, A u s f w and Ob. g Meridies; gentilic ’?YE,E V TEMANITE, in Job 22 I, Inn ; Barpav(s)in)c, or eep. ; occasionally Oarpaqs, Bcpamp, Brpaviris [A,Joh 15 : cp 42 1 7 4 ; Themanites).

Cp Kautzsch. in Riehm UWBZ 1648 * Buhl Edomiier 30.f ; Lury Edoomiter 26. T r k b u l l ( K d e h d u t - k e a 1 1 7 5 ) takes adiff& view: keman ‘ wasprobably the portion bf Edomwhich lay directly S. or Teman-ward of Canaan.’ Trumbull even finds a trace of the old name ;n the Nakb (‘pass’) d y e m e n which goes northward from W2dy Fikreh “over against ancien; Teman’ ; and in Josh. 15 I he would render the closing words p’n X?p (RV ‘ a t the uttermost part of the south’) ‘from the extremity of Teman’ (so, too, the pioneer British critic Geddes). Greene too (He6. Migration 145) regards Teman a s the southern part of Edom, now knbwn as cESera as distinguished from the northern (Gebalene), and including tde Idumzan range and as far N. as Mt. Hor. According to EUS. Jer. (OS 260 96 : 155 32), Thaiman wasthe name of a village distant 15 (Jer. says, 5) R. m. from Petra, and the seat of a garrison. T. K. c.


(’Jp’n [Baer], ’Jp’n [Gi.],



T EMAN ), son of ASHUR, the tribe of Judah ; I Ch. 46 (Barpav of [BA], -vel [Ll). Probablymiswritten for ’??, Timni, the gentilic of Timnah. See TIMNAH i. T K. C. .

‘JQ’n; cp

I. T H E T E M P L E For the ancient Israelites, as for the ancient Semites in general,a ,temples was the abode of a deity-a bFt~.szl n,q)-in the strictest meaning 1. Meaning. Of the and not in the in which we ’peak Of Christian places Of worship as houses Of God. A temp1e in antiquity was 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 Of the expression-was usually Cp Gen. 25 3 @ (Barpav [AD], Bep. [E ; om. L], brother of




sitnated, 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 he 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 of the oldest forms of Semitic particularly in the religion, the deity u-as found, in the first instance, in certain natural objects and features which impressed
1 G EBAL (q.”.) is a late name of Arabic origin.

the primitive worshipper (see N ATURE -W ORSHIP ) ; 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 c0vering.l Often they had no need of a n altar even; the sacred rock was itself an altar; c p 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 A LTAR, NATURE-

supported by two pillars (Judg. 1629). 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 ultiniately arose also another apartment or hall to which the worshippers of the god had access, and in which they had audience of him. In what sense Solomon's temple can be spoken of as something new, may easily be judged from what has 3 . already been said. In their general and details temple and temple. arrangementalike wonders to Solomon's palace were David's subjects, such as had never been seen parations' before ; but the conception of a temple of Y a h d 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. Yahwk, however, the narrative goes on to say, would not suffer this. Not David was to build a house for Yahwk, but Yahwk 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 rrom 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 orgdnised ( I Ch. 2 2 8 ) . 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 cle,arly still in the words of Nathan when he asks (z S. 75f: ; cp I Ch. 176) : Has Yahwh 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. I n Solomon's case again we need not seek too exclusively for purely religious motives. It was by means his intention, as tradition 4, Solomon,s no to been, motives. represents it withhave solitarv to provide the Israelites one sanctuarv. ,, 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. H e 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 neighhouring 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. I t u-as a citadel-sanctuary for himself, not a temple for Israel that he built. Only thus can we understand the mistrust and even

W O RS H IP ).
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 a' Oldest 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. 1 7 . f ) ; sonleone 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 (Jndg. 17). Here again it is not a place of worship-a meeting-house for worshippersthat 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 reqnired, 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, 5 7 end). In accordance with this is the fact that in the OT we read of temples only where there is a n 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 2f) 4.. Similarly at Nob there was a great temple with a numeroils priesthood 'in connection with the famous oracular image there ( I S. 21). The sacred ark, the most sacred object in Israel, stands in this respect in the same category with t h e image as representing the deity. It, too, naturally requires to be housed; it Cannot he left simply in the open. The house assigned to it w a ~ same in kind as those its worshippers the !ived 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 A RK O F THE COVENANT). W e know nothing in detail as to the arrangement of the oldest Israelite temples. W e 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. T h e temple of El-Berith a t 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. 946f.). At Gaza there was a great temple with a hall, the roof of which was

1 The ka'da of Mecca, even, is no dZth-21 (house of God), 'household god ' no covering for the black stone worshipped there. The ,to;, in question is, in fact, visible frbm without, let into the wall, and the entire ka'da is merely an expansion of the stone ; cp Wellh. Ue2d.P) 3, 69, P 73. J


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 Snmaria or Shiloh (Jer. 7 12 Mic. 15). I n 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). T o lift a tool upon an altar stone is to pollute it ; so also to go up to it by sieps is a desecration ( E x . 2 0 2 4 5 ) . 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 z K. 1610.8). On the site of Solomon’s temple cp PALACE, J E R U S A L E M , 5 19. We may regard it as settled that it stood on the eastern hill. T h e archi5. the site of tectural history of the place shows that a temple. 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 (postexilic) 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. K. 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. T h e temple, in that case, must be held to have stood on the steep slope of the hill towards the Tyropceon 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, 5 30). W. R. Smith (EB(Q),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 Joseph& entirely exclude the sacred rock from the temple limits can hardly be maintained, a s will presently be shown. Moreover, apart frnm any other consideration, his argument fails in view of the lie of the ground, a s 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 50 ft: between the SW. and NE. corner of his temple court, a s i m i l s difference of 90 ft. In other words : his temple stands entirely on the steep south-western slope of the hill, and numerous substructions 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.

as the scene of the angelic appearance in z S. 21. which marked the place as a site of a sanctuary of Yahwe (cp Judg. 6 I I f. 13 I?). The statement of the Chronicler that Solomon built his temple here at the threshing-floor of Oman, has every probability in its favour. That the sanctity of the place goes back to a still earlier time is not unlikely.
I n this case there arises only the question a s to the place more precisely where the temple stood with reference to this sacred rock. Several scholars (Kosen, 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 N T 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 il‘nw, Yami 5 2 ) . Further, this stone was identified with Jacob’s stone at Bethel (cp Rashi on Gen. 28 and Breithaupt’s notes). Both Mohammedans and Christians transferred these legends to the Sabra, which the former accordingly venerated a s ‘ a g a t e of heaven’(1bn ‘Abd Rabbih ‘Zkd 3369). Mohammedan sources enable us to trace back this’identification to the Moslem Jew Wahb ibn Rlonabbih, who enriched Islam with so many Jewish fables and died a century after erusalem was taken by the Arabs (Tabari 1571 f: : Ibn a2Fak-h 97 3). 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 rezson of the diminsions of the rock which is ahout 59 ft. I17.7 metres] long, 512 ft. [15.5 metres] broad, with a height above ground of 4 ft. I& in. to 6 t ft. L1.25-2 metres]. T h e 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 difkulties on account of the conditions of space. the altar of burnt-offering would have to be moved codiderably to the E. of the ruck 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 P ALACE, 5 4).


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 sncred point. The rock is doubtless to be regarded
4 927

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 ( 5 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, Palastinu, 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 C ONDUIT S , 5 3). If in accordance with what has been said we may regard this rock as being the site of Solomon’s altar of burntoffering, then the temple, properly so called, lay to the westward of this, and its site is determined with tolerable accuracy. On the text of the description of Solomon’s temple, cp what is said elsewhere with reference to the descrip6. The main tion of his P ALACE, § 2. In the present case, also, after the many later additions buildiags‘ 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, 165). For a reconstruction of the buildings some help can be obtained from the description of Ezekiel’s temple (408). True, his temple is primarily a work of the imagination; but, on the other hand, his description, broadly speaking, agrees with I K. 6. That, as a former priest, he was familiar with the first temple may be taken for granted; there is also an u 0 ~ ~ ’ wprobability that in’his description he would follow -i 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
1 [It is assumed throughout this article that the longer cubit >f 20.67 in. is meant; see W EIGHTS A N D MEASURES, 8 I.]
2 T h e threshing-floor of Oman cannot have been on the rock, which has an irregular, not level, surface.


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 In matters where the buildings contained in them. these points do not come into question we shall for the most part be safe in transferring his data without hesitation to the earlier temple. The temple-complex fell into two divisions-the main building, the ' house of God ' properly so called, and the subsidiary buildinRs by which it was surrounded.

mentions 120cubits, which is a sheer impossibility. T h e text is hopelessly corrupt ; the 20 cubits of @ 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 1 2 0 cubits in Chronicles by suggesting that the porch was similar to the pylons of the Egyptian temples; but neither theword 'ziZum ( n k m ) nor yet the other measurements would be appropriate to a gateway of this sort. I n 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. The internal space was divided, a already said, into two aparts Internal ments, the larger arrangements. in front and the smaller behind. T h e 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 00 100 wall; not of a curtain merely.1 The door was made of olive wood the and was pentagonal-ie., lintel was not horizontal hut formid an angle as Thenius rightly explains, I K. 631 (cp St. Z A T W 3148).* In Ezekiel's temple a breadth of 6 cubits is given to this door (Ezek. 412); 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 withgold. This notice, however ( I K. 632), does not belong to the old architectural description. If the walls of the h2kd and of the d&ir were unprovided with carvings, we can hardly suppose that the doors were otherwise treated ; and as for the overlaying, we learn from 2 K. 1816 that it was Hezekiah who first overlaid the temple doors with gold. T h e inner apartment ( d Z 8 i ~ ) 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 I O cubits in height, and that thus the temple roof had a uniform height of 30 cubits from the ground. From I K. 8 12 f: (see l3enz. ad Zoc. \ we mav ventnre to infer that the inner room was perfectly dark. This adytum, called kiter the Holy of Holies, was the most essential part of the temple. It was the dwelling-place proper of the

. ,












FIG.1.-Ground-pian of the Temple.
T h e 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 cubit of 20.7 inches, in round numbers to 104, 35. and 5 2 feet respectively. It lay E. and W., with entrance from the E. The measurements given above are, as appears from the ( description of the d p 6 < ~ I K. 6 16a, cp ZJ. z o ) , and as is confirmed by Ezekiel's account, the internal dimensions.
On this assumption indeed we must suppose that either the total length (60 cubit;) 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 take; u p some space. The thickness of the walls is given by Ezekiel (41 15) as 6 cubits a measure that may also be taken a s appl ing to the old d a h . At all events the walls, to begin wit{; were of considerable thickness a s 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, $ TI).

Before the d&iZ ( S p ) , the Holy Place, eastward, stood a porch. Its length was the same as the breadth

1 According to 2 Ch. 3 74 there was a curtain before the entrance to the d&r. 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 I K. 6 21 : ' h e 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 Renz.

ad Zoc.
SCALE O F F E E T 2" 31 40


FIG. 2.-Section of the Temple.
cubits) and it was I O cubits in depth ; but its height is nowhere given either in Kings or in Ezekiel. T h e parallel place in Chronicles ( 2 Ch. 34)

of the house

2 T h e other interpretation (Ges., B a r , Keil, and others) explains the wen: of I K. 6 31 a s meaning that the area of the door was a fifth of the entire superficial area of the wall. So also Klostermann with emGndation: the lintel was 3 fifth-i.c., 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 veryforced. n-@cg stands in contrast with nip,, 'square,' in I K . 6 2 3 75.



deity, whose presence here was represented by the sacred ark. The walls of the d&r were panelled with cedar; the floor was of cypress wood. According to the present text the walls were also overlaid with gold ( I K. Szo) ; this, however, is a later addition to the text (see below). The anterior apartment, the h&il, afterwards known as the Holy Place, was, as already mentioned, 40 cubits 8. The long, 20 broad, and 30 high. It also panelled with Place. was floored with cypress and work nothing cedar, so that of the mason was visible. Here again the statements as to the walls having been overlaid with gold ( I K. 62122 a 30) are quite late additions to the text (see below, J 9). This apartment also was not particularly well lighted. Since the building that surrounded the house was 15 cubits in height and the dl6ir 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 &batr. 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 I 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 'dtumim (p'py?; cp Benz. on I K. 64). W e 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 charnikres, that in entering one did not requre to open the whole door, but only the two inner 1eaves.l The width of the doorway is not stated ; in Ezekiel's temple it was I O cubits (Ezek. 412). Here also are repeated the statements as to overlaying with gold (I K. 635). More particularly it is here stated that the covering of gold was fitted exactly on to ?$;?). Thus the decorathe engraved design (ae&g tive work in question did not consist of figures carved in relief (Reliefschnitzereien), but of figures outlined on the flat (Konturenzeichnungen). Stade ( Z A T W 3 1 4 0 8 ) has shown that the various statements as to the overlaying of the walls of the dJ6fr (I K. 620)~of the w-alls of the 6 i k d 9. (vv.21 zzu 30), of the doors ( w .3 z 3 5 ) , tion and of the cherubim (v.28). and of the altar decoration. in the h2kd (v. 2 2 6 ) 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 6. 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, hut the covering of gold is not mentioned, though this certainly would not have been left untouched had it existed ( I K 14 26 z K. 1 4 r q 18 17). On the other hand we are told of Hezekiah that he overlaid the doors and doorposts of thehZknZ; hut it was not with gold (2 K. 18 16). Moreover strictly speaking a covering of gold must he regarded as inco&atihle 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 I K. 6 m . ) That the temple walls were adorned with carvings is more credible. I n Ezekiel's temple ( 4 1 1 7 5 ) we read that the whole wall was in like manner decorated with carved cherubim and palms, a palm between two 1 Ewald Keil and others think of the doors as horizontally divided ea;h in;o an upper and a lower half of which only the lower had t o be opened on entering. .Agai&t this cp Thenius on I K. 634.

cherubs. Here, however, great suspicion cannot but be aroused by the fact that the relative notice ( I I .6 1 8 ) (

is wanting in 6, the verse disturbs the connection in that
the most violent way, and that with its statement that ' all was of cedar ' it is inconsistent with what has been said in I K. 615. Nevertheless, there i s 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. 128fi 29 1 6 1 0 8 23 4 TI f:). Thus we may safely regard the carvings as having been the work of a later king. W e are not told anything as to the construction of the roof of the building. Many scholars, such as Lund (see Die alt.yud. Heiligthzi'ner),Hirt (see Der Tempel Salomos). Schnaase (Gesch. d. bizdenden K@nste, 1843), take it to have been gabled; 1; but according to 2 K. 2312 2 Ch. 39 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 P ALACE ), 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, 0; perhaps even slabs of stone. T h e usual railing or battlement ran round it (cp Dt. 228). W e 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. T h e text says nothing of this ; but in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon, where the span was much less (only 124 cubits, about 21% ft. ), we hear of struts (lit. shoulder-pieces I K. 7 2 5 6 , Benz. see ad Zoc. and PBLACE, J 5,with illust. ) on the pillars which served as supports for the beams of the roof. W e must think of similar supports projecting from the walls in the case of the temple building. T h e main building was surrounded on three sides (N., W., and S.) by a side building, or yZ@ ('; ES, AV ' chamber,' RV ' story ') in three stories ll. Side- containing ' side chambers,' $fa'& (i)( ny; AV ' chambers ' ; cp Ezek. 41 5 5 ). The under story was 5 cubits broad, the middle one 6 cubits, and the upper 7. T h e increasing width seems to have been obtained by narrowing the temple wall, which diminished in thickness by successive steps or rebatements on the outside ( I 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 improhable-that this was also the case with the exterior wall of the side-building. In that case the differentialbreadth of I cubit falls to be divided between the two walls ; the thicknebs 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+ 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 buildin is not given in I K. Ezekiel gives it as 5 cubits, and this w& doubtless have been the old measurement (Ezek. 41 9). T h e height of each story from floor to ceiling was 5 cubits ( I K.610). and thus the height of the whole structure over 15 cubits (3x 5 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. W e 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 ( I K. 68). T h e passage from one story to another was by means of steps, or more probably That ladders, through openings in the roof ( I K. 6 8). 1 Lalim, 03!?k is usually rendered as meaning a winding staircase. For this rendering reliance is chiefly placed on 6


In front of the porch of the temple stood at the entrance two bronze pillars cast by Huram-Abi, a 12. The pillars Tyrian artificer (see H IRAM z ) ; for further details see below, also J ACHIK of bronze, A N D BOAZ. \Ve are told that JBkin was the oneon the right-i.e. S.-B6‘az 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 ( H A 233f.), 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 E::ek. 4049, 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 Ezckiel 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 niincl 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 @ ( I K. 7 4 5 ) is preserved the inforniation 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 me are to identify the latter with Jachin and Hoaz, it still remains very possible that he deliberately not only supprezxs their names but also assigns to them a quite differen): 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 pOSSibk 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 a t Tyre for examplc had t w o costly pil1:irs in which hlelkarth was worshipped (Herod. 244). The annexed figure, representing the temple :It Paphos on a F IG . 3.--Coin representing teniple at Paplio;. coin, exhibits the two pillars standing wholly detached to the right and left of the entrance. In front of the temple at Heii-apolis, also, were similar pillars (Tt-RS, Ked 208, 488). Since the temple of Soloinon was assuredly affected b y Syrophn:nician influences it is natural to conjecture that i n it Jachin and Hoaz had a significance analogous to that of the other pillars just alluded t o ; namely, In that case that they were symbols of the deity. their origin \vi11 have to be sought in the ancient rnos5Z66dfh lvhich used to be customary objects in all Semitic sanctuaries, including those of ancient Israel , (see MAssk:naa ; also Benz. H A 379 f : XVRS, Kez. S e m P J 191,n. I ).
(;hil~7i) BvL&zms).

This is not equivalent to saying that as late as Solomon’s time these pillars were still regarded as symbols of Yahw& ; we can equally well suppose that they were set u p in accordance with a n ancient custom no longer understood, or simply in imitation of Phcenician models. If the view j w t taken be correct it becomes easy to understand why Ezekiel should have ignired them, or have sought to disguise their original meaning by reducing them t o 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 $-5y). I t would not be easy to guess how he could have come to place them so unless he had some old source to g o upon for the meaning of the pillars offered above was certainly unkdown to him.


FIG. 4.-Glass bowl with representation of Temple.
T h e 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

This, however, is not a translation of C ’ i h
0 1

hut proceeds upon anotier reading(Benz. ad Zoc.). I n huildings of the ancient E, no trace of winding staircases has anywhere been found, and it is therefore very improbahle that they are mentioned here. Levy (,VHlVB) points out that the openings in the roofs of the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were let down (see below, {j 33) are called 1’7h (cp Middaa‘h, 45). Thus, as Stade has rendered prohable, we shall most likely have to think of openings provided with trap-doors and reached b y ladders or trap-stairs.






, a

I 1 1 0


F IG. 5-Brazen1 pillars.

quite detached pillars near the entrance. T h e detailed description of the pillars has been preserved in a threefold form ( I K.715-22 41f. z Ch.315-17 Jer.52~1-23



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 (@ wrongly 14 cubits) in circnmference. They were hollow, the brass being 4 fingerbreadths 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. T h e one questionable datum is that of I K. 7 19 where the nieaning 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 I K. 7 15). The temple was surrounded by a conrt, called the 'inner' court, as distinguished from the great court 13, court enclosing the entire citadel. This inner and gates. court was surrounded by a wall of three courses of hewn stone surmounted by a course of cedar beams ( I K. 636). As to the dimensions of the court, its entrances, or any other architectural details the description in I K. says nothing. x The measurements in Ezekiel (100 100 cubits) are not to be transferred to the old temple, since with that prophet the court had quite a different function. H e makes it accessible to the priests alone; whence the Chronicler actually describes it simply as the ' Court of the Priests ' (nq$q y ; 2 Ch. 49). In ancient times and down to Ezekiel's day everyone had free access to i t ; it was a place of public assembly as we can see from such passages as Jer. 35 T 8 36 IO z K.12 12. For the position it occupied in the complex of buildings, see P A L A C E , 3. In Jer. 36 IO 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. 2610 3610). 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. T h e same will hold good also of the 'upper' gate which according to 2 K. 1535 was built by Jotham ; here also we have to d o merely with a restoration of an ancient gate. W e may with considerable confidence seek for this gate on the upper, that is on the nort!iern, side of the court, and thus identify it with Ezekiel's 'north gate' (8392) and with Jeremiah's 'upper gate of Benjamin' ( ~ O Z ) ,since the road to"Benjamin lay northward. If this N. gate is called the gate of the altar in Ezek. 815we 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.1614 where we are told that Ahaz set u p the old altar on the N. side of the forecourt. This N. gate appears also in Ezekiel's temple as the chief entrance (469 4 0 3 8 8 ) . Whether Solomon's temple had a third gate-to the E. - not certain ; but it is probable. Ezekiel's temple is has one such gate which is opened only on Sabbath and feast days and reserved for the prince ( E z e k . 4 6 8 ) . 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 ( I Ch. 9 'king's gate,' there are only two possi 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. 3814 we read of a third entrance, and snch a third gate can best be looked for on the E. side. 'The mention also of three 'keepers of the threshold' ( z K. 2518 Jer. 5224) points to the existence of three gatcs. W e further learn of the temple court that it was already paved in the pre2

exilic time ( 2 K. 1617). So also that in the same period there were 'chambers' in it. Jer. 354 mentions a 'chamber of the princes' (Ziskath haj-sErim, p i b n n j d i ) which was above a ' chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper of the threshold,' and adjoined that of the 'sons of Hanan.' According to Jer. 3610 Baruch read the book of the words of Jeremiah in the chamber of Gemariah, which was situated a t the entry of the Kew Gate. Here we are doubtless to understand partly chambers which served as lodging for various officials, partly storerooms 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. 4 0 4 4 8 4 2 1 8 ) . The sacred object p a r exceZZence in this royal seat of worship was the ark of Yahwe (see A R K ) which had its place in the Xdytum (iydibtr), the 14. Equipment : +,hesl,.k dark inner chamber, and in the _-" ancient view represented the presence of the deity. I t is remarkable to find in the temple of Solomon this special significance of the ark weakened by the addition to i t of two cherubim. These stand I O 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 Their faces are the N. and S. w-alls of the d l b k turned towards the E. Beneath the wings that touched one another was the ark. On the form, origin, and meaning of these figures see C HERUB (cp also Benz. or I K. 630). What is of special interest to note here is that the cherubs are the bearers of YahwB, the signs and witnesses of his presence (Ezek. 181019f.) ; it is on this account that we read of Y a h d as throned above the cherubim (Ps. 1810[I.]), and the name Yahwk, the Lord of hosts, now receives the addition ' who sitteth upon the cherubim ' ( I S. 4 4 2 S. 62). In accordance with this the dibty is regarded as an extension of the ark just as the Ka'da a t Mecca is a n extension of the sacred stone (see above, I end, n.). Another quite peculiar symbol of deity which had not its like at the other sanctuaries was the brazen It stood in the 15. The brazen serpent, Nehujtan. temple-whether in the Holy of Holies serpent. or in the outer chamber we are not told. Down to Hezekiah's reformation incense was On its origin and meaning, cp offered to it. N E H U S H T AN . T h e absence from the accounts of the temple which have reached ns of any reference to this, which a later age had learned to regard as a n 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. &Z I n the outer chamber of the h Z stood, in front of the entrance to the dtbir, the table of shewbread (I K. 620). This was a n altar of cedar wood 16' Of which is not further described in the shewbread' account of the temple in I K., but Ezekiel's description of the corresponding object will doubtless apply here. According to this, it was z cubits in length and breadth and 3 in height ; doubtless, therefore, there were steps up to it. Further, it had, as was usual with corner-pieces resembling horns altars, ' horns ' - i e . , ( E k . 4121). According to I K. 6zoJ it was overlaid with gold; but to this statement will apply nhnt has already been said of the corresponding statements The table elsewhere (§ 9 ) ; it is a later addition. of Ezekiel is plain cedar. The use of the table is for offering the so-called shewbread (see SACRIFICE, $$ 14, 34 a). 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 (cp I S. 2 I ) , but there is no evidence of any regular offering
I .



of incense such as would have demanded a special altnr. ' I n I K. 74'3 an altar of incense is nientioned along with the taIAe for the shewbread ; but both this verse and that immcdiately following it are later additions to the account of the temple (see Benz. ad In ch. 6 there is nothing of any such altar, ahich Indeed makes its appearance only in larer strata of P. Similarly, it is only in a late appendix ( I 1<. 7 4 9 ) that the golden cardlesticks said to have k e n made by Scdonion are mentioned. When this is said it is not of course meant that ths-re were no candlesticks at all in the temple. It is iin 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 ' H e sleeps in the dark,' what is nieant is that he is so poor that he cannot buy himself a drop of oil. The Hebrew expression that speaks of a nian's lamp as having gone out, meaning that he and his family have disappeared, i s analogous (cp Jer. 2510) ; see L A MP . This custom makes it probable that a light was also burnt in the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of Y a h d ; according to I S. 3 3 this was the case during the night at all events. From what has been said above ( 5 7f.)as to the lighting of the h&iZ 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 Hnram-Abi-of bronze, however, not of gold. The number I O , 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 E:. 25 14 f. may be due to accident merely (cp Jer. 52 19, which verse, however, is regarded by Stade, in view of Ex.2529, as an interpolation ; see ZATCV 3 [1883] 1 7 3 . C A N DLE S TI C K . , 3 ) Cp I n z Ch. 48 mentior, is also made of ten tables, five on the S . and fire on the N. side of the sanctuary. The5e are often

To the service of the altar belonged a variety of utensils which w a e :dro inst by Huram-Abi. See Eenzinger on I K. 7 40 45 ; A L T A K , 5 9.



Between the altar and the porch, to the SE. of the ( temple building, stood the grent brazen sea ( I I. to probable shape and 19. The brazen 7.23-26). as of which see SEA( HRA%F:S). sea and lavers. s~gnificance To this brazen sen belong the ten wagons (AV bases, nii'z, mnAC,-~Cth) with la&, which were arranged, five on the S. side and five on the N., of the temple ( I I<. 7 27-39).
T h e text of the description of theie 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 m a n s easy to amend it satirfactorily, and many details in the dcvription, after every effort, still remain ohscure.1 The folloainc description rests on the reconstruction of the text upon which Stade proceeded in 188; (so also Benz. ad loc.); in many details Stade has since ( ~ 9 0 1 )preferred a different intrrpretation. l h e various particulars cannot be discussed here.

explained (as for example by Keil) as having been intended for the shewbread, but certainly not correctly (see above, cp 2 Ch. IS I I 29 '3) ; they a r e rather to be placed in the same category as the ten candlesticks (see Rertheau on 2 Ch. 4 rg). T o the temple service also pertained of course a variety of minor furnishings, such as knives, forks, dishes, and the like. I n T K . 7 4 a S these are introduced by a later hand and represented a s having been of gold. I n the original description they were either passed over without mention, o r , t h e y have been removed from i t to make room for this later notice.

In the forecourt, due E. from the temple entrance, stood the great altar of burnt offering. In our present 18. The bronze text this is left wholly undescribed. But that a description of it once stood altar. in this place, and that Solomon caused a n altar of bronze to be made by the same Tyrian artificer who cast the other pieces, are facts attested by I I. 6 4 , cp 2 I<. 1 6 1 0 3 A later redactor stumbled (5 a t this. for in his view there already existed in connection with the tabernacle a n altar which was now transferred to the temple. Here also we may, generally speaking, suppose Phcenician influences to have been a t 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. 2 0 2 4 8 In 2 Ch. 4 1 some additional data are given as to the size of this altar ; it is represented as having been IO cubits in height and 2 0 in length and breadth. Ther,e 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 diniensions given ( z o x 20 cubits) will therefore apply to the area of the base, from which the altar rose in three successive stages each diminishing by 2 &bits; 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











FIG.6.-The brazen laver.

T h e wagons which support the lavers are 4 cubits in length and breadth and 3 in height. Their sides arc not of massive plates but consist of a brazen frameaork ornamented \rith ties or cross-piecrs of brass (mzJg<rZfh, EV ' borders ' ). The ties were subsequently removed by Ahaz for the sake of the metal, so that the frames alone were left ( 2 K. 1617). Frames and ties were decorated nith lions, oxen, arid cherubim. The whole structure was carried on bi-men axles and wheels. Upon each stand rested a bi-azen larer, of 40 baths capacity (see W E I G H T S A N D . \ l s . ~ s W R i r s , 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 [ERAZEK]), 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


(KJfi.), and art.




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 In lavers of Ezekiel and from the tabernacle of P. and sen alike we may therefore safely conjecture the original meaning to have been a symbolical one. The cherubinls and animals with which they were adorned had a t 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 hearers of the cloud-throne, here of the collected waters. Kosters (TILT , 1879, p. 455) explained them as symholising the clouds. This is possible (see S EA , BRAZEX), hut 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. I t can hardly be said that they were conspicuously well adapted for any such purpose. If we proceed next to a consideration of the meaning and origin of the whole temple plan, it is plain a t the very outset that it reproduces the funda20. Meaning mental type of the sanctuary, and origin of viewed as the abodeSemiticdeity in the of the temple plan. sense already set forth (see I ). T h e essential feature is the little cella, the d&r, where the deity himself is conceived of as present in mysterious gloom. I n 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. I his 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. H A , 3 8 5 ) 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 Syrophcenician influence is quite unmistakable (cp P ALACE ). Phcenician 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 distinctive kind in the temple buildings of Solomon have been discovered also in the temples of the northern Semites. Puchstein ( J a h ~ b .d. kaiser2. -deutschen archdol. Znst. 7 13), on the basis of a compwative 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, semicircular or angular, and the side-buildings can be either divided or undivided. ' Robertson Smith (art. ' Temple ' in Bncy. Brit.(9)) points especially to the temple a t Hierapolis (M&ig), which, as described by Lucian, offers an exact parallel. I t faced the E. and had two ceilz and apvonaos. In front of the door stood a brazen altar in a walled conrt. This walled court is also one of the characteristic peculiarities of the Syrian temple (cp T. L. Donaldson, Architectura Numz'srnatica. London, 1859 ; Renan, Mission de Phdnicie; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in hi.). On details of decoration, cp C HERUB. The palm tree, likewise so prominent a motif in the temple, is also one of the commonest symbols in Phcenician art. When Solomon built his temple, it was as a royal

private chapel, one sanctuary among many, and not 21. History of even the most famous of these ; the sanctuaries of 8010mpn,s ancient Dan. etc.. longBethel, Beersheba. continued to remp'e' rank far above it in the DoDnlar estimation. T h e development in the standing of the temple and its importance in the history of Israel need not be dwelt on here (see D EUTERONOMY, 5 13 ; I SRAEL , 5 33f: ; LAW LITERATURE, § 13) ; but it falls within the scope of the preseut 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 bnilt an outer court. The form of the notice-that it is with an ' outer' conrt that we are now concerned (see above 9 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 a t least extensive repairs had become iiecessary ( z K. N4fl). Jothani built a new gate, the ' upper gate' of the minor forecourt ( z K. 1 5 3 5 ) 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 a t 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,' rnisgZr8th)of the lavers, and to melt the oxen of brass which supported the brazen sea ( z K. 1614 &)-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 ( z K. 18 16). The structural changes made in the temple by Manasseh were connected with his introdnction of foreign eastern cults ; on the temple roof and in the conrt he set up altars to the ' host of heaven ' ( z K.2312) ; the houses for the hieroduli and the accommodation for the horses of the sun ( z K. 23711) are doubtless also to be assigned to Manasseh's reign. Josiah removed all this, and took in hand extensive restorations of the temple fabric ( z K. 2 3 5 3 ) . According to our present accounts the temple was plundered by foreign foes four times before its final destruction by the Babylonians. Firstby Shishak inRehoboam'stime (1 K. 1426); again, under
. Y


Joram's reign, by the Philistinesin conjunction with Arab tribes (Joel 3 cp z Ch. 21 16f: 22 I. a third time under Arnaziah b y ) Joash 'king of Israel (2 K. i4 14) ' and a fourth time under Jehoiichim hyNehuchadrezzar(2 24 rj). These all contented themselves with robbing the temple of its treasures, without carrying the work ofdestruction farther so far as we know.


I t 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,-whetherof gold, silver, or bronze,-the pillars also being broken np and carried away ( z K. 2 5 8 8 Jer. 52 12 & z Ch. 36 18). This was according to the M T of 2 K. on the seventh of the fifth month, according to Jer. on the tenth day of the fifth month, and according to bLof z K. 25 5 on the ninth day of the month. T h e 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. Ezekiel's temple (Ezek. 40-43) never got beyond the
1 T h e text of Ezekiel's description of his temple is very corrupt. I t is impossible therefore to reconstruct it with exactitude. Consult especially Cornill's edition of the text ; as also the commentaries of Smend and Bertholet and the Archaeologies of Benzinger and Nowack. On Ezekigl's altar cp Z K W L 1583, PP. 6 7 8 4 5 5 5 , 1884, PP. 4 9 6 8



theoretical stage, arid remained always 'an imaginative 22. Enekiel's construction merely. It demands some notice here, however, as giving expression temple. to a new conception of the sanctuary and its significance-new or at least differing from that which finds expre!;sion 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. T h e 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 occupanc,y. A protective area, the land of the Zadokites, encl.oses 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 I : 2 ; the gateways are 25 cubits in width and 50 in length, the temple proper 50 cubits (from end to end IOO), the open space surrounding the altar is 100 cubits square, and so forth. T h e 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. T h e northern, eastern, ;and southern sides are pierced at the middle by great gateways (25 x 50 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 I O cells-making a total of 30-intended to be used by the people for miscellaneous purposes such a s refreshment and the like (cp Ezra 106 Neh.134f.). In the four corners are lesser courts separated off by partitions ; here are the kitchens where the Levites cook the offering of the Gatewa,ys corrresponding exactly to the people. 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 hurnt offering. T h e temple building itself, which stood on a. higher level reached by ten steps, consisted of a porch ( 2 0 cubits in width and IZ in depth), the Holy Place (.io x 20 cubits, inside measurement), the Holy of Holies ( 2 0 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 T h e total length, thus amounting to 50 cubits. including the porc:h, was IOO cubits, outside measurement. As the Chronicler relates, the first care of the exiles on their return was the restoration of divine worship. I n the first instance, however, they cona3. Zembbabel,s temple. tented themselves with setting up a new altar of burnt offering on the site of the old (Ezra 3 3 ; cp Hag. 214). 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 ELRAN EHEMIAH , 6f., I O , 16 [I], 17 ; H AGGAI , 5 3 (6) ; I SRAEL, 55 5 3 8 ) . As regards the build ng itself the O T supplies us with only a few fragmentary notes, which are b u t sparingly supplemented by Josephus and Pseudoaa HecatEus (ap. Jos. ). T h e dimensions of the whole temple area are given by Hecatzus (ap. Jos. c. Ap. 1z z ) , i n so far as he tells us that the court was 5 plethra ( L e . , 500 Gk. ft. =485& Eng. ft. ) in length, and 100 Gk. cubits ( = 1454 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 ( I Macc. 4 44). Doubtless also it was reached by a sloping ascent instead of steps. According to HecatZeus 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. 3 6 ; Ecclus. 503 : the latter passage is certainly very corrupt). Of the gates mention is made in Neh. 331 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 (Zz'fkcith; aaaro+bpra) of which we incidentally hear, were in the court or in the side-building of the temple itself we do not know.' 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 Wilsonarch. When it was erected we do not know (Josephus, Ant. xiv.42; B J i . 72 ii. 163 vi. 62). Like Ezekiel's temple this also had two courts (aliXai, I Macc. 434 48) : only-the point of chief iniportance -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 Jannieus did something that mas contrary to 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. xiii. 135). 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 considerablylarger than the other. The text of the passage is hopelesslycorrupt (cp also Ryssel and Bertholet i Zoc.). a

As regards the internal arrangements, we know that the Holy of Holies was empty; the ark no longer 25. Internal existed. A stone three fingers -in snrrsgementa 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 (&en ftthzjyih) already referred to in 5 5 ; cp Jos. B J v 55, YCnzd 5 2 ) . T h e Holy of Holies were separated from the Holy Place by a curtain (I Macc. 1 2 2 4.11. -<-,T h e Holy Place, in like manner, was closed by a ; curtain (I Macc. 451) within it stood, as in the former 1 Cp I Macc. 4 38 ; Jos. Ant. xi. 4 7 xiv. 16 z ; Ezra 8 zg 106
~ ~~

Neh.3301037& 1 2 4 4 3 . 1 3 5 f i



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 ( I Macc. 123). It was restored by Judas the Maccabee. T h e 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 z Macc. 25, each naming two pieces of furniture in the sanctuary : the former (Jos. c. Ap. 1Z Z ) the Pwp6s and the candlestick, the latter the incense altar and the candlestick. On the Arch of Titus, also, only two pieces are shown. 'The first temple resembled other temples of antiquity in being built to contaiii a visible symbol of the presence 26. priestly of the deity, namely, the ark, which stood in the inner chamber. I n 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 hut in all others the ritual of the second tern le was dominated by the idea of priestly mediation, and tfe 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 a servants in the sacred offices (Ezek. 447) ; in the s 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, &e have just seen, by a barrier, which only the as priests were allowed to cross (Jos. Ant. xiii. 13 5). As regards the later history of Zerubbabel's temple, the subsequent works upon it and the strengthening of 2,. Ristory the wall surrounding the outer court are with the name of the high of second associatedON 11. (Ecclus. 50 I ). Antiochus priest S IM Epiphanes not only plundered it, but desecrated it by setting up on the altar of burnt offering a small altar to Jupiter Olympius ( I Macc. 1 2 3 8 4 4 8 54 438 z Macc. 6 2 8 ) ) . Three years later, after the reconquest of the city, Judas the Maccabee restored the temple, set up a new altar with new furniture, and consecrated the building anew (cp I Macc. 1 2 3 8 4 4 3 8 52f: z Macc. 105 Jos. Ant. xii. 76). At the same time he fortified the temple with high towers and walls ( I Macc. 460 67). so that the temple thenceforward could be regarded as the citadel proper of Jerusalem. These fortifications were demolished by Antiochus 11. Eupator ( I Macc. 6 22) ; but they were again restored by Jonathan (I Macc. 1236 Jos. ARf.xiii. 551), and a t a later period further strengthened by Simon (I Macc. 1352). At the time of Pompey's siege (63 B . c . ) the temple was a n exceptionally strong fortress, defended on the northern and more accessible side by towers and deep ditches (Ant.xiv. 42). Pompey took it by storm, but left the sacred vessels untouched (Ant. xiv. 4 7 ) . Crassus, on the other hand, plundered it without mercy (Ant.xiv. 71, H i . 88). The temple was again besieged and stormed by Herod ; like Pompey he concentrated his attack on the north side. I n this siege some of the temple cloisters were burnt and some persons killed; but the desecration stopped a t this (Ant. xiv. 16zJ). In the twentieth year of his reign (20-19 B.c.) Herod the Great began to build the temple anew. 28. The temple Besides the descriptions in -Josephus, of Herod. we have for Herod's temple a mass of details andmeasurements in the Mishnic treatise iMida'5th. Josephus was himself a priest, whilst

the Mishnah was not written till a century after t h e destruction of the temple, though it uses traditions that go back to Levites who had served in the temple. T h e two sources differ in many measurements, and the Midd6ih 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. T h e 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). H e r o d s motives in this undertaking were not so much religious as political. On the one hand it afforded 29. Herod's him a n opportunity of giving some satisfaction to the feelings motives. Jewish subjects, religious he had soof his often which 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 b e h h d 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. In death the scheme should remain uncompleted. 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. T h e rebuilding meant, in the first place, a considerable enlargement of the temple area. According t o 30. plan of Josephus' account (Ant. xv. 113, B J l z r ) the former area was exactly doubled, and temple. the perimeter raised from four. stadia (Ant.xv.113) to six (BJv.52). I n other words, the breadth (from E. to W.) remained as before-a the length (N. to S. } stadium (Ant. xv. 113)-but was increased from one stadium to two. T h e available level ground on the temple hill was insufficient for a plan so extended, and vast substructions on the southern side became necessary. T h e whole S. wall was new from the foundation. Even to-day t h e 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 (BIiv. 912). On the N. was the gate Tadi of t h e Mishnah, which Josephus mentions only incidentally. This, like the gate Shushan on the E., which he does not mention a t all, must have been of minor importa n c e ; the chief accesses were necessarily from the lower city to the S., and the upper city to the W. beyond the Tyropceon valley. T h e S. wall, says Josephus, had gates in the middle (Ant.xv. 115). T h e Mishnah names them the two gates of Huldah. 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 g a t e 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 Tyropceon 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.(@), S.V. 'Temple') look for this




southern g d e here. It is more probable, however, that a it Iny somewhat farth82r to the N., t 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 Jojephus speaks, niust, 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 f i l i i . 163 vi. 62 v. 42, 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 arszh. 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 Roniau style, which presumably dates from the Herodian period (as to this cp J ER U S A L EM , 5 8). Round the entire temple area on all four sides ran porticoes built against the enclosing wall. T h e finest was that on the S. side-the Stoa Basilica-which was fornicd by four rows of Corinthian columns of dazzling white marble (162columns in all). Of the three aisles that in the middle wa.s twice as high (some 28 metres) as those flanking it, and broader by one half (some IZ 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. xv. 11 5 , BJ v. 52). T h e eastern portico was known as Solomon's porch (Jn. 1023, Acts 3 XI$ 5 12) ; there mnst 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 cemple was the citadel of Antonia (see J ER U S A L E M , B 28). I t lay on the NW. and dominated the temple area (Jos. Ant. xv. 114). Stairs descended from it to the -,NW. corner of the area, t o the northern and western portrcoes.

the others opened into that of the men. T h e gates had double doors which were covered wzith silver and gold, the gift of the Jewish alabarch, Alexander of Alexandria. T o the W. there was no gate and the E. side had but one,' 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 i t , 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. B J v . 53). 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 ( M i d .14). the last-named inner gate between the court of the men and that of the women corresponded to the gate of Nicanor; according to the description of these gates by Josephus, however, there would seem to he some mistake in this. T h e gates were probably 2 all of them porch-like in plan, with side recesses (exedrze) which made the connection with the chambers skirting the length of the walls. I n like manner there was a n upper chamber above the gateway properly so called (cp Midd. 1 5 ; T&mid,1I, where mention is made of a n upper chamber 4 of the gate of Sparks [yir*?: 1 ~ on the N. side). This gave the gates the tower-like appearance of which Josephus speaks. Along the enclosing wall ran a series of chambers (ZtFZk5th)which served for storage of the various utensils, 32. The skins of sacrificial animals, sacrificial salt, chambers. wood, vestments, and the like, or for various operations, such as the preparation of the meal-offering, and so forth. T h e supreme council also held its sittings in one of these
chambers. Their precise number is unknown. Midd. 5 311 mentions three on the N. and three on the S.; elsewhere yet others a r e 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 questioi (Schiirer in Riehm, H W B , conjectures that the statement is a n inference from Ezek.46zr). Some of these chambers (whether all of them is uncertain) had upper stories (Yam&15 and Tfirnia'l I ; allusion is made to a n upper chamber of th; Bet-Abtinas). I n 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.

In the temple of Herod the separation of sacred from profane was rigorou:,. T h e Antonia, the porches, and the space inimediarely within these were not holy ground, in the strict sense of the word. They were acccssible to Gentiles even, on which 31. The outer ' court is actually and gates. account the the ' court of the Gentiles,' ofteu called although this description is nowhere met with, either in Josephus or in the Mishna. In the centre of this enclosed space rose a platform a t a height of 15 cubits above the court of the Gentiles-the inner court with the sanctuary proper. This platform itself w-as in turn surrounded by a na::row terrace, I O cubits in breadth (&?; BJv. 5 2 ; iWz'u'd5th, 23). 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. BJv. 52 ; M i d d J t h gives the number of the steps differently). There was no entrance upon the W. side. A breastwork (J@, s5rig) of stone ran round the whole of the inner court beneath the level of the steps. On it were placed a t intervals inscribed tablets forbidding every one who was not a Jew from crossing the limit or treading the holy place, on pain of death.' 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. T h e inner court was divided into two unequal portions by a cross wall running N. and S. T h e eastern and smaller space, which lay a t a somewhat lower level, formed the so-called court of the women ('ii:iruNt nlirim, p w ? n?:y Midd. 25). and was accessible to Jewish women. The western space, containing the temple buildings properly so called, was for mccn only. The wall enclosing the inner court was pierced by nine gates ; the N. and S. sides had each four gates, the easternniost of which in each case led directly into the court of the women, whilst
1 One such inscription (Greek and Latin) is still extant (PEFQSt., 1871, p. 132; Benz. H A 4 0 4 ; Nowack, f f A

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 (BJv. 56 A n t . xiii. 135) ; but the Mishna (Ai'idd. 26) speaks only of a wall running from N. to S. The area thus shut off u-as 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. 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. 3 6 ) . The ground plan and dimensions of the building were building. the same as in the temple of Solomoriviz , 60 cubits in length 20 in breadth and 40 in height. Two costly curtains shut off the Holy of
1 According to Mida'. 2 6 (cp M. Sk+iZim, 6 2) the gates on the S. side were these : ( 1 ) fi')J'g l' (wanting in Midd. &@ 1 4 ~ 3 (2) p>? ' d ; (3) n i l i q 'd ; (4) o y 'd ; and those on ; the N. side were : ( I ) W??; (2) pic: 'd ; ( 3 ) O'q?? ' ; 'd ; d 'i. 14f: gives three quite different names ; (4) l? '? 'd. &&d those a the eastern end leading into the court of the women a r e t not taken account of a all. t 2 Jos. BJ V. 5 3 seems to presuppose this for all the gates. Elsewhere in Josephus mention IS made of the northern or w w e r n exedra, so that it might seem a s 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.

2 77).



Holies (20 x 2 0 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 o Holies on the N. side. f The anterior apartment of the s a n c t u q ($x*nnlin Midd. 4 7) was 40 cubits in length. It was entered from the E. through the porch by a great double door (iyd 51-13> Midd. 4 2 , cp Tamid 3 7 ) of 40 cubits in height and 16 cubits in width (so Jos. B J v . 5 4 ; according to Midd. 4 1 only 20 cubits high and I O 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 (BJv. 54). Above the gate were golden vines andgrapecliistersasbigasaman(B1v. 5 4 ; Ant. xv. 113 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 C ANDLESTICK ). Eastward from the temple was, as in the temple of Solomon, a porch ('ziL8m) 100 cubits in breadth, IOO cubits in height and 20 cubits deep (according to Illidd. 47 only I I cubits). Its gateway, which had no doors, was 70 cubits high and 20 cubits broad (Jos. BY5 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 (B1i. 213) 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 nt. xvii. 6 2-4). (%he temple building had an upper story of the same dimensions with the lower (BJv.55). T h e 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 temp1e;the side-building surrounded the house on the S., W., and N. It The was three-storied and 40 cubits in height. 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 ( M i d d . 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 A LTAR ). 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.35 52 Tdmid 35 Sh@dim64). On the S. side was the bronze laver at which the priests washed hands and feet before entering the sanctuary ( M i d d . 36 ; cp Y i m d 3 1 0 ); also a silver table for the vessels and a marble table for the sacrificial flesh (Sht&ilim 6 4 ; Tcintid4 3 ) . Herods gigantic and costly structures were still in building forty-six years after their commencement, when Jesus began his ministry (Jn. 220)) and the works were not completed till the 4947

procuratorship of Albinus (62-64 A . D . ) . 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. 1. B.

T h e system of worship of which the Jerusalem sanctuary was the centre assumed 34. 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 bow 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 D I S PER S I O N ) laden with gifts for the temple. And here, in the elaborate sacrificial worship, they rendered the highest tribute of homagewithin 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 minutire of its ritual and organisationin the later Jewish literature (the Mishna and GEnigri), 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 Misbna tractate Ta'mid, 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 S YNAGOGUE . 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. ( u ) The Priests.-According to Josephus (c. Ap. 28) the priesthood in his day numbered no less than zo.000 It was only on rare occasions 36* 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 ' (mifmdr, q f p , ' watch ' = r a r p l a or Iq5qppia, cp Lk. 1 5 8, or &+vpqds); and the ' courses ' again into subdivisions or ' families ' (nix: 95s =+ u h j ) . It is interesting to note that JosephusfVit. 11)claimsto belong by birth to the first of t h e twenty-four 'courses'-thatof Joiarih -from which also the Hasmonzans sprang ( I Macc. 2 I). Both the main- and the sub-divisions were presided over by 'heads (n'd~!), each of whom was termed respectively 'head of the course' ( y h ?j K l ) or 'head of the family' (2H n.2 aN1). I


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 (k8hZn hag-gddZ, 5ixn ]XI, dpxiepetk), 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, 57). During the and the great annual festivals (Blv. 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. ( 6 ) h i , f e s -Another class of temple officials, occupy. ing 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 postexilic 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 ( A n t . xx. 9 6).
The Levites like the priests, were divided into twenty-four ccour~es,' andkach perfoi:med duty in a corresponding manner. Similarly these were also presided over by 'heads' (DWN:).
(c) The oflciul ' IJmeZites. '-Corresponding to the divisions of the priests and the Levites there was also a division of the people into twenty-four courses of service (nnotjD) ' 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 YahwB' (Schiirer). T h e division on duty for the time being was technically It termed 'a station' (ma'dmCd, ~ p p ~ ) . 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 performe(1 the absent members of the ' station ' met together in the local synagogues for prayer and the reading of certain passages of Scripture. T h e leading passage on the subject in the Mishna ( T u ' d n i t h 4 z ) runs as follows :-

made. The most important of these was the stpun (Arani. pD, the vocalisation of the Heb. form ~ J Di s uncertain), who ranked next to the high priest. T h e widely-held view that the st'gan was the high priest's deputy or substitute has been controverted on cogent grounds by Schiirer (Hist.ii. 1 2 5 7 f : ) 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 ( Y6m.d 1 I)-a superfluous provision if an official substitute already existed. Schurer gives good reasons for identifying this official with the captain of the temple (urparvybs TOG iepoF) frequently mentioned in both Josephus and the N T , who controlled all arrangements for maintaining order within the temple area. Subordinate to him, but exercising functions essentially similar, were a number of other s2ginim or captains of the temple police, who are probably to be identified with the ' captains' ( u ~ p a ~ v y o i )Lk. 224 52. of Next in dignity to the high priest and the sigan ranked the heads of the twenty-four courses (inenn D N ~ and (below them) those of the constituent 'families' ( 1 q v ~ i ) . Besides the above there were various n~ other functionaries connected with the temple aniong the priests and Levites. These (following Schiirer) we may group into three divisions : ( u ) 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 ' ! ? ; ya{o+liXaKes). known as ' treasurers ' (gizbririm, n They also gathered in the half-shekel tax (Sh@ 21). T h e 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. xx. 8 11) was the head of be order of treasurers, forming probably one of belonged the ZnrarkeYZn (i'$,i~~) of a word eaning 'accountants.' The Jerusalim Talmud a150 mentions another class that falls within this category: viz., the l*p$ynp (rdohrmi), about whom, however, the Mishna is silent.


'The earliest prophets established twenty-four courses of service (niTman): To each belonged a stal€(TDyi)) in Jerusalem composed of priests, Lwites, and Israelites. As soon as it; turn to serve came round to a course, the priests and the Levites belonging to it proceeded to Jerusalem, but the Israelites assembled in the synagogues of !heir different towns and there read the account of the creation. (It should be noted that the w k o h of the course, of priests and Levites, whcn its turn came, had to be present in Jerusalem.)

The part taken by the high priest in the temple worship has already been referred to, and need not 36. Functions here be further enlarged on. It may of priests and be pointed out, however, that the daily meal-offering of the high priest, which Levites. was offered in coniunction with the daily bnrnt-offering of the people (Lev. 612-16),was (in practice) not so much offered by him as on his & h a y and a t his expense. .4ccording to Schiirer (Hisf.ii. 1 2 6 8 n. 243) it is this offering which is referred to in the difficult passage Heh. 7 2 7 , thongh 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 (§ 3 8 ) . T o 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
~ ~~ ~

( b ) Officials connected with the police department. Here Levites were mostly employed. According to the Mishna (Trimid 1I ) , 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 (J 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 ( ; . 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 carrled out. Patrols also moved round by night and day. At night it was usual for a captain of the temple, known as tj.8 n ' i n i n , to make a round of inspection to see that the guards were not sleeping at their posts (iMidd6th 1 2 ) .
Another officer( m p ~ q y 6 is )also mentioned under the title ~

morning sacrifice was offered at daybreak it was necessary that




the gates should be opened somewhat earlier. At the great festix als (when large preparations for additional sacrifices, etc., had to be made) the gates were opened much earlier-as early as midnight during Passover (Ant. xviii. 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 ciosing years of the temple) are enumerated in the Mishna (Sh@iZdZim5 I ) . From this passage we learn that there was a n officer ‘over the lots ’ ( i . c . , 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 ‘ i n return would give to the person tendering one the amount of drink -offering requisite for the particular occasion for which it was wanted ’ (Schiirer). The hereditary offices confined to certain families, were connected with matters tnvolving 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 cymbalplayer (who gave the si-nal for the Levites to begidthe music) a temple physician, a &ster of the wells, a herald, a keeper the veils, and a keeper of the priests’ garments. A comparatively large class of officials was the guild of sacred musicians (mXFrZrim, n”nwa, qahTyGoi, fepo$dArar, fipwwG01, KtBapLuraf T E Kal GpvwGoi), 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., I 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 (&riCifim)were introduced into the choir at the high-festivals (Passover Pentecost and Tabernacles), and that the only instruments nit assigned ;o the Levites were the metal trumpets ((uZpQ&dtlr), which were regularly blown by priests (esp. to accom any the offering of the daily sacrifice). The place of the 8Gthinim in Herod’s temple seems to have been taken by the &zzx~nim(.: n?! ‘servants,’ ‘sextons’: see e g . , Tci?~zid5 Menial offices were 3). also performed by boys ofthe priestlyfamilies(7173 *nis, ‘scions of the priesthood,’ TZwzldl I, etc.). W e may pass over the details connected with such subjects as admission to the ranks of the officiating priesthood (Schiirer, Hist. ii. 1Z I O ~ ) ) ,the residence of the priests and Levites (ib. 2 2 9 ) , and the sources of the temple revenue (ib. 2308), 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, a t least, its typical features. The regular worship of the temple centred in the daily public offering (i.Dnn nhy or simply l*Dnn) of the 37. The temple prescribed sacrifices, morning and On sabbaths and festivals senices: the evening. daily offering, 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 ( T i m i d ) , based evidently on sound tradition. T h e substance of this may here be given. The service naturally divides itself into three moments : ( I ) the preliminaries, mainly affecting the priests, and including the slaughter and preparation of the sacrifice (I 3 8 J ) ; ( 2 ) the offering of incense and of

the sacrifice, accompanied by prayer (I 40) ; and ( 3 ) the service of praise and thanksgiving (5 41). I. T h e priests on duty slept within a chamber of the inner court. Very early those who were desirous of taking part in the sacrificial worship 38. The preliminaries. arose and took the baptismal bath so as to be ready for the official summons, which might come a t 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 theotherwestward, with lighted torches in their hands (except on sabbaths when the temple was lit up) and met in ‘ t h e place of the pancake makers’ ( L e . , the apartment where the high-priest’s daily meal-offering was prepared), and greeted each other with the words ‘ I t is well; all is well!’ They then passed to the Hall Gazith (nwn n>ws, 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 t o determine s h o was to cleanse the altar and prepare it. The mode of ca+g 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, twn, or more fingers-since it was not lawful in Israel to count personswhen 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, TemgZe Senice, chap. 9 I , following Maimonider). 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 a t the brazen laver, removed the unbnrnt 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 0; the altar fire thore priests td whom the duty had been assigned, were prepar:n the baked meal.offe+g 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 :-(I) 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; ( I O ) the entrails ; ( 1 1 ) the offering D f 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 mived (determined by the approach of dawn when it ,vas visible in the sky up to Hebron). On the jignal being given the lamb was brought from the R amb-chamber ( O * N ~ L ) nxws). given some water to drink From a golden bowl, and led to the place of slaughter Jn 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 :ncense, and trimming the lamps on the candlestick 1 and 4 above) proceeded to the sanctuary, the one 3 with a golden pail (-20). the other with a golden bottle :in). At this point orders were given (by the elders xho had charge of the keys) to open the temple gates, :he noise of which (according to the Mishna) was heard it Jericho. T h e accomplishment of this was heralded


by thrce blasts on the silver trumpets, which gave the signal for the Levites and ' men of the station ' (representative Israelites) to c-ssemble, and also announced to the city that the morning sacrifice was about to be offered (for these details see the G i m u ~ E Tumid). on 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 incensc-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, S A C RIFI C E , 5 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 ('fa), 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 fc,llows:-Only fiveof the seven lamps were a t 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 relighting 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 he 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 other; were attended to. The <candlestickwas 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 (113) and withdrew.

part of the sacrificial worship, of what was publicly recited later when the incense ascended from the altar. W e may suppose also that the people, during the interval of silent prayer, mentally repeated the same prayers.
T h e analogous case of the Sheman& '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 o /. I;athers,(2) Excurs. 4119). f (6) As to what benediction was recited 6 e f o ~ e the S h t m d , the Mishna gives no indication, and it was early a matter of dispute ( B . Ber. 116) whether it was that over the creation of light (ik i d * ; the modern form can be seen in Singer's Ed. of Hd.-Eng. Prayer Book. 37fl),or that in praise of God's love, known as Ahiib2h 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, 0 Lord our God (Jer. 31 3). With great and exceeding compassion hast thou taken compassion on us (cp Is. 65 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, 0 Lord, who hast chosen thy people Israel in love. (Cp /ewish EmycZ. 1281,and reff.)

Meanwhile the slaughtering of the sacrifice a n d the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar had been followed by the flaying of the victini, which was cut up into pieces, and the entrails washed upon the marble tables. T h e pieces were carried by the six allotted priests (each taking one piece) to the altar, while a seventh carried the offering of flour, a n eighth the baked meal-offering (of the high priest). and a ninth the wine of the drinkoffering. These were all laid a t the foot of the altarascent, and salted ; and then all the priests assembled once more in the Hall of Polished Stones. Here a service of prayer was celebrated, the details of which are, however. not free from ambiguity. The 39, The prayers Mishna passage ( T ~ m i d S, bearing I ) and blessings. on the matter, runs as follows :-

The benediction that followed the ShPma', beginning with the words ' true and firm ' ( x v i nm), is a thanksgiving to God for various acts of redemption (hence its technical name gear&), 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(estab1ished) it is that thouart YahwS 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, Yahwh shall reign who has redeemed Israel. (See further Zunz, Gottesd. Vobrtr. d Jude%,@) . 370, P) 383.)

T h e president said : ' Give one' hlessing ' ; and the priests blessed a n d read the ten commandments (acd), the ShZma' (in its three sections). They blessed the peopl: with the three blessings-vi.. (the blessing) 'True and firm ( 3 9 p 1 MN), (the blessing) 'Service' (mi>y), and 'the blessing of the p r i e s t s ' ( ~ ~ ~ - , 3 ~ n-~i>).And on the sabbath they added one blessing for the outgoing temple course.

Of the other two 'blessings,' the first, that known as

' service ' (niny), was doubtless a thanksgiving for the
splendid temple worship, which may have been an earlier form of the present 'AbMa prayer ( = t h e 17th of the ShPm6neh 'Esreh ; cp Singer, 50f.). and in its earlier form may have run thus :Accept, 0 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 he ever acceptable unto thee. Blessed art thou, 0 Lord, who receivest the service of thy people Israel with favour [for the last clause, see Rashi on Biriikh. I I 61.

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 prie:jts and people; and (6) what is meant by ' one Messing ' and by a three blessings ' ? l Regarding ( a )it has been usual to suppose that the ShEma' ( i e . , the three sections of the Law, Dt.64-9 1115-21 : and Nu. 15:;~-41which 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 pardlic service, and come later (so Edersheim, and apparently Schiirer). T h e difficulty about this view is that the benediction ' true and firm' belongs to the ShPmd, 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 S h h a ' itself was recited public& as well? It is not, perhaps, altogether impossible to regard the priest's service in the hall-ie., the recitation of the ShEmd preceded and followed by the benedictions mentioned, including ' service' and the priestly blessing'-as a sort of rehearsal, 6efon the solemn 1 (See L. Blau, ' Origine et Histoire d e la lecture du Schema,

R E / 3 l [ I S ~ S Ipp. 17g-Zc81.)

The ' blessing of the priests ' was, doubtless, some form (not, however, the precative form now used in the synagogue=thc last of the ShPmBneh 'Esreh) of the wellknown priestly blessing (Xu. 624-26), in using which within the Temple the priests pronounced the ineffable name (ala,) 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. T h e 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. 2. The oferering o incense and o fhe saCn3ce accoinf f


panied b prayer.-The incensing priest now took a y golden saucer (13) covered with a lid, containing a smaller saucer (71s) with the incense. An assistant priest then brought some live coal from the great altar in a silver pan (mnp) 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 mayr2phEh (see col. 3z29), at the sound of which priests hastened to the worship, the Levites to occupy their places in the choir, while the delegates ( I 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. T h e assistant priest who had the pan of coals emptied them on to the altar of incense, prostrated himself, and withdrew. T h e other assistant then arranged the incense, and withdrew in like manner. T h e 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. 8 1 3 f : quoted by Edersheim). T h e incensing priest, also, after prostrating himself for worship, withdrew from the sanctuary. T h e period of silent prayer was followed (if the conjecture given above is correct) by the recitation of the Shbma', with the ten commandments and benedictions set forth above. Others think that only the three ' blessings ' (mentioned in TEmid 51) were here recited. In any case, the priestly blessing was given in the following manner. T h e 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.' T h e 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 When the high priest officiated, he the altar-fire. received the pieces from the priests. placed his hands upon them, and threw them on to the altar. T h e 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. 3. The Service .f praise and thanksgiving.-Hereupon the music of the temple began. The choir of 41. ~ ~ s i c a l Levites, to the accompaniment of instrumental music, sang the psalm of the day, service. 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'-Le.. 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 u f e r the burnt offering instead of before it, and the lamps in the sanctuary were not trimmed, but simply lightea. T h e 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, 4 8 ; third, 8 2 ; fourth, 9 4 ; fifth, 81; sixth, 93; on the sabbath, 92. On the sabbath and festivals the same daily sacrifices Thus on the sabbath were offered, only increased. 42. The sabbath the sacrifice was doubled, and so on. and festivals. The essential features, however, were much the same. [For details, see F EASTS , S ABBATH , and the works citeh below.]
G. H. 8.

2 EE fg :


The literature of the subject is immense. The older bwks are given in Bahr (Der Salomonische Tempel) and other writers. only the more important modern work; 43. Bibliography. can be mentioned here. (a) General: The Archzologies of ,$ n J Saalscbiitz, Scbolz, Schegg, Haneberg, de-Wette-Rabiger,, ell, de Visser, Benzinger, Nowack ; the articles S.D. ' Temple in PRE (Merx), BL (Diestel), Riehm's HWB, Ency. 5riL.B) (hy W. R. Smith ; it has been freely used in the preparation of the present article) Hastings' D B (T. W. Davies). the commentaries on King; by Keil Thenius Klostemann kenzinger, Kittel ; Fergusson, The Te&e o f t l $ / e w s , Londdn, 1878 (6) Text andLiterarj, Criticism: The commentaries on Kings (above): Wellhausen in Bleek Einl.PJ ' Stade 'Der Text des Berichts iiber Salomos Bautin' in Z A ?"W. 1882. DD. _. 129-177. (c) Topoyaphical: The resnlts of mdern survey and excavation are given in the PEF vol. 'Jerusalem' (London, 1884) and ; in the accompanying atlas. See also Rohinson, BR (9 Tobler Topographie ferusalems, 1853-54; Fergusson, Topograplty femsalem, 1847 ; Thrupp, Ancient ferusalem, 1855 ; De Vogue, Le Temple de ferusalem, 1864 ; Rosen, Das ffaram von ferrrsalem u der Tempelpktz des Moria, 1866; Schick . Beit e l Makdas; ode7 der alie Tempe&latz 1887 : id. D i l Sti/tslraf#e,der Tempei in ferusalem u. der ?empe&lah dcr fetztzeit; Adler, Der Felsendom u. d. heutige Grdeskirche zu ferusalem, 1873 ; Socin-Benzinger in Baedeker's Pal.15J (d)Solonion's TempLe: Of older works may be mentioned those of Bh. Lamy, De Tabernaculo FmieriS, de sanCta civitate JerusaZem et de Templo el'us, Paris, 1720; A. Hirt, Der Tempel SaZomos, Berlin, 1809; Fr. v. Meyer i . Stuttgart d 1839. A more modern phase of discussion may 6e said to beg& with Bahr, Der Solomonische Tenz#el nzit BenZcksichtipng seines Verhaltnisses z. h. Architekfur ueberhaupt 1848. See further B. Stade G Z 1 3 1 1 f l ; H. Pailloux Mono&ajhie nu temp& de S a d o n , Paris 1885' F. 0.d i n e ~ o l o m o n ' s temple and CapitaZ 1886: Frddrich, Tempei u. Palast Salomos, 1887 ; 0. Wolff, De7 Tempel von Ierusalem u. seine Maase, 1887 ; E C. Robins, The Temple o Solomon, 1887 ; . f Guinand Monographic du Tetnple a2 Salomon Ik88Perrot-Chipiez, Le Temple de fewsalem et la M&n dd Bois-Li6an restitu6s a p d s EzechieZ e t Ze livre des Rois, 1889. L. Feuchtwang in Z .f: dildende Kunst, new ser. 2, 1891, p: i 1 4 1 8 : H. Recker in Wiener allgem. Bauzeitfmg, 1893, hft. 1-4; Perrot-Chipiez,f u d a e a . ( e ) Ezekiers Temple: Cornill's edition of text; tbecommentaries of Smend, Cornill, Bertholet: also Toy in S B O T . Rottcher, Proben A Tlicher Schnifterkliirung (r833), id. Neu; Aehrenlese; Balmer-Rinck, D e s Prophefen Ezekiel Gesicht oum Tempel, 1858; Kiihn in St. KY., 1882. H. Sulley, The Temple qfEzekiers Prophecy, 1889 : Stade, CZ 247& V, Zerubba6eePs Temple: De Moor and Imbert, in Le Mushon, 7 and 8 ; the commentaries of Ryssel and Bertholet on Ezra and Nehemiah. (9)Herod's Temple: A tolerably complete catalogue of the older literature on Herod's temple will be found in Haneberg Die religiose Altertlimer der Bibel, z & f . for the rnoder; literature see Schiirer Gf VPI 1 3 2 3 s We me&on here : Mishna tractate Middoth, with the commentary of Obadja Bartenora in Surenhusius, 5 ; E T in Barclay, The Talmud, 2 5 5 8 Moses Maimonides in ?pin l:(discussion of the Talmudic details as to the temple and its furniture, in Ugolini's Thes. 8 ) ; J. Lightfoot Descrz fro terxpli Hierosolymitani (also in Ugolin. Thes. 9) Hirt, %eber die Banten Herodes des Grossen ' in Abh. B e d Akad. :philoZ.-hist. classe, 186-17, 1-24 : Haneberg, Alterpp. ttZmer, 266-336; Spiess, Das f m s a l e m des fosephus, 1881, pp. 4 6 3 ; id. Der TempeZ des ferusalem wahrend des i'efzten Jahrhxnderts seims Bestandes nach fosephxs 1887 ' Schiirer Riehm, HWB, 1663,X ; Block, E n k r f ebes G A n d r i s s e l vom Herodianischen T e p e Z nach Talmudischen QueZZen 6ear6eifet : Hildesheimer D. Beschreihungd. Herod. Tempels im Tractate Middoth u. b.' FI. Josephus' in/ahresber. d. Rabb. Senrirrrars f: d. orthodoxe fudentum, 1876-7 ; Lewin, The Siege of/Prusalem by Titus, 1863. (h) Temple worship. In addition t o the works cited above, see esp. Schiirer, G V I P ) ,5 24 (bibliography); SYNAGOGUE, § 11. 1. B. ($5 1-33> 43) ; G . H. B. (% 34-42).






Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful