Ti. ThbTemple Enclosure. —Solomon's Temple
(1 K 6, 2 Ch 3 ; Ant. vill. iii.) was GO cubits long E. and W., 20 broad, and 30 high (the cubit, aa measured at Siloam, and on the masonry of the .lerus. Param and Galila;an synagogues, being alKjut IG in.). Its porch to the E. was 20 cubits broad and 10 cubits deep. The chambers, on N., S., and W., were built with a wall set back in stejis, so that the interiors in the third storey were 7 cubits wide, in the second 0 cubit-s, in the first 5 cubits. The thickness of the walls is not stated. The roofs were of cedar, and the interior gilded with designs similar to the Bab. bas-reliefs of cherubs guarding palm trees. The whole structure and style, in short, seems to have resembled the art of I'lKcnicia and ChaUhca rather than that of Egypt. The Temple appears to have had an inner priests' court, with bronze altar, and an outer i-ourt, but no measurements of these are given.* In the later account (2 Ch 3^) the height is given as 120 cubits (LXX 20 cubits), and Jos. believed that Solomon's Temple was 60 cubits higher than the later restora- tion Dy Zerub. (Ant. XV. xi. 3). It is possible that the porch may have formed a lofty pylon higher than the Holy House itself. It is not clear whether the two bronze pillars, Jachin and lioaz, each 23 cubits high (1 K 7"-'^'), supported the lintel of the pylon gate, or whether tliey stood outside aa stelse (the word 'in' may be rendered 'for,' v.^'). Jos. gives the area or Solomon's enclosure at 4 furlongs (Ant. XV. xi. 3), and places the E. cloister close to a dr.ep valley (Ant. XX. ix. 7), stating that Sol. built the E. wall, to which later kings added others (Wars, V. v. I). But it is not clear how these details could be known when he wrote, since he states that Herod 'took away the ancient foundations ' (Ant. XV. xi. 3), and built the cloisters ' from the foundation,' and enclosed 'double the area' (Wars, I. xxi. 1). He under- stands the Temple itself to have had an n|iper storey, and gives the number of chambers as 3i» in all (Ant. VIII. iii. 2); but these accounts of a build- ing destroyed nearly seven centuries before his time are of less value than his description of buildings which he had himself seen.
There is, however, little doubt that the Holy House occupied the same site, and was of the same length and breadth, in the time of Herod and of Solomon. Jos. says that Zerub. placed the altar ' in the same place where it had formerly been built' (Ant. XI. iv. 1) ; and as to the situation of this building, he says that ' at first the topmost plateau (t4 avurriTu) ^''o^^iS'') barely sufficed for the Holy House and the altar' (Wars, v. v. 1, see Ant. Vlll. iii. 9), whence it appears that the highest part of the ridge was the site selected. Herod, tnough he altered the enclosure, did not touch the Temple itself, which was restored by the priests. In the Mishna it is stated that the east door of the Holy House was directly opposite the summit of Olivet (Midd. ii. 4 ; Parah iii. 9, iv. 2 ; see Ezk 43'^). As regards the general description of the third Temple, the account given by Jos. agrees with the careful details of the Jitishna (Middoth), but his measurements are unreliable — as In other cases at Caesarea, Samaria, Masada, etc. — and often contradictory. He makes the altar 20 cubits square (c. Apion. i. 22), or else- where 50 cubits ( Wars, V. v. 6), and the valleys 300 to 400 cubits deep (Ant. vill. iii. 9; Wars, V. V. 1), the real depth not exceeding 160 ft. He speaks of stones 40 cubits long ana 6 cubits
* There appears to have been a ' caxiseway ' or ascent by step§ to the Temple (1 Ch 2G1S), perhaps the same described bj Jos. {Ant. XV. xj. 5) towards the N. part of the W. wall ; but aa regards the ' ascent ' Cn^v) in the time of Sol. (1 K lO*. 'iny^n^ in 2 Ch »*), LXX, Vulg.,' Pesh. render in K (according to the regular sense of ripi") and read in Ch, ' the burnt-offerings which he offered," and Jos. follows this reading {Ant. vol. vi. 6) Se«
ASCXKT.
JERUSALEM
JERUSALEM
599
high (AnC. XX. ix. 7; Wnrs, V. v. 1), a greatly exa^'^'urated estimate. Wlieu, therefore, he gives the circumference of the third Tem])le a.s 4 fur- lon'.'fl* {Ant. XV. xi. 3), or, including Antonia, 6 furlongs ( IVars, VI. v. 4), we must remember that lie was writing in Home, and merely estimated the lengths. Measured along the e.xtant walls, the area, including Antonia, is about 8 furlongs in lUl.
Following the description of Jos., some authori- ties simipose that Uerod's Temple occupied a square of cut) ft. side, in the S.W. part of the yaram. The objections to this view are briefly: 1st, that in this case the Temple cannot have stood on the ' topmost plateau ' ; '2nd, that the area noticed in the Mishna (5iJ0 cubits .square) is larger ; 3rd, that there are no remains of any walls, to E. and N., at the required distances, and no break in the S. wall GOO ft. from the S.W. angle; 4th, that the Ophel wall joined the ' E. cloister,' and has been discovered abutting on the E. wall of the ^aram ; 5th, that the existing outer gates agree with the descriptions only if the Temple Area is supposed to coincide with the present ooundaries of tlie yarara ; 6th, that unless placed on the top- most plateau, the Temple — surrounded by courts at various levels— must have required foundations 30 to 100 ft. deep to reach the kno^vn levels of the rock. The masonry was too heavy to have been simply founded on earth. These objections have never been answered, and in our present state of knowledge it seems safer to depend on the general statements of Jos. than on his measurements, which are hard to reconcile with his incidental remarks.