,1K630; '|Z.12'H'iiJ.146
TEMPLE
TEMPLE
701
altar a belonging to the d'jbir^ but this error arises from the above interpolated clause rightly rejected by Stade and Benzinger] ; (5) the chenibim ; ^ (6) the leaves of the door. 7
It is probable that the statement about Riding is a late adcUtioD in all the above instances, and that, in Solomon's temple, it had no place. It is sig-niflcant that in every one o( the passages in question there are other indications wiiich awoken suspicion (for details consult Stade, ZATM' iii. UOfF.X When Shishak, klnc of Efjx'pt, attacked and conquered Jerusalem, he took away ihe treasures of both temple and palace : tlie (golden shields are distinctly named, but not a word occurs about the gold of the walls, etc.2 Jehoash, king of Israel, overcame the king of Judah, and took from Jerusalem the t'old and silver and the temple vessels, but nothing is said about his strippinL.' walls, etc., of the gold that covered them.i Similarly, Ahaz in his extremity took the oxen on which the brazen sea rested, and also other tUing8(2 K lb* I'O. One would expect to read of his purloining the gold that was so conspicuous it it covered walls, doors, inner altar, cherubim, and even floors. ^\Tien Hezekiah stripped the doors and pillars of the temple, in order to make a present to the kingof Assyria (2 K ISi^r.), nothing is written about there bcin;^' anv gold given, though of course this is not denied either. 'Gold* in the EV, as the italics indicate, is not in the Hebrew.— Ezekiel's temple does not appear to have had any of this gold-overlaying. In short, apart from the suspicious reference named, we have no allusion in the subsequent history to this gold covering. In post-exilic times the wealth of Solomon was greatly exaggerated. Just oa his wisdom and power were, among Arabs as well as Hebrews, in yet later days. It was felt by those who made the additions re gold that Solomon's exalted character demanded them. Besides, the P tabernacle was pictured as plentifully supplied with gold : this would atTor^l a strong motive for making gold more con- spicuous in Solomon's temple.
2. The Pattern or Style of Architecture
IN WHICH THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON WAS BUILT.—
Those who claim to speak with authority on this point have held opinions widely apart, showing liiat the data are inadequate for a clear and reli- able decision.
Some (e.g. Williams, etc.) have found the model of Solomon's temple among the (ireeks. Thrupp,^ de Vogii^,*) -Thenius.fl and Benzingert pronounce the architecture of the temple to be Egyptian. Benzmger gives a detailed account of the temple of Amoii Ua at Karnak, t<>gether with a plan, in order to show how much Solomon's temple resembled this. He calls special atten- tion to the threefold division of porch, ht^kdi, and d^Xr which obtained in both temples. Nowack, on the other hand, points out that this same feature characterizes the ancient t«mples of Sicily.* Thenius' diagrams at the end of his valuable Coin- mentarj* on Kings are all based on Egj-ptian originals, and he is controlled throughout his Commentary and treatise by the idea that the first Jerusalem temple was a copy of the Egyjitian t«mples. Fuchstein X and Nowack^ argue for a Syrian origin. W. B. Cobb» makes the Syrian factor the principal one, as indeed Puchstein does, only the latter contends that Asayrian art was originally Syrian.
Fergusson ; pronounces the problem insoluble, only that he says Egypt is out of the question. He thinks that either the valley of the Euphrates or I'luijiiicia was the most likely home of the temple architecture. But he does not give any arguments of weight to support his opinion.
Friedrich.o Perrot and C'hipiez,* and W. R. Smithy trace the Biyle to Phfcnicia. The fact that Hiram, the artificer (1 K T'^f-, 2 Ch 2'3'"), was a Pha'nician, thou^'h connected with Israel, lends strong support to Uie last view, and Fergiisson is not against iL
The natural conclusion to come to is that either riiuL-nician or Syrian art — it is hardly possible to distinguish these two — was that followed in the construction of Solomon's temple ; but the arji^ti- ments and illustrations adduced by Benzin»;er, Cobb, and others go to prove that there was a close resemblance between the sacred architecture of the Semitic world and of Egypt.
Contents of tlte liekdl. — In iront of the d^ir was an altar-ahaped table on which the Shew-
% ^ufjueLriiMt Is certainly 'altar* not 'censer.' So Blcek, I^iinemann, Kurtz, Weetcott, Delitzsch. Per cnntra^ cf. Biesen* tlial and EV.
<3 1 K 0-». V 1 K fl»«- M. > 1 K liW.
1 2 K UK \ Ancient Jerrixalem.
n Le Tnnpel de Jirutalrm. 6 Com. and Appendix.
» //'•^. Arch. 385. x lieb. Arch. il. p »4, D. 8.
kJahrb. (Ut Kaiserlichen deuUehen archaoi. iTittitxUs, voL tU. pt. 1.
fj. Ueb. Arch. II. 34. f Origimg Judatcce, 242.
i TrmpU* of ihe Jev$, p. 83.
• Temftel u. J'aicut Salomo't, DenJcm^iUr PhOnikiecher Kun»U
w IliMtorj/qf Art in Sardinia, Sj/rvit and Ana J/tnor, p. 141 f.
/ Eneyc. BrU », art. 'Templet'
BREAD was set a.s an oHerin^ to God. a This is not the altar of incense, as KeU,^ B:ilir,7 and most of the older authorities contend, for we do not find such an altar named or implied in any pre-exilic document. 5 There was no such altar in Ezekiel's temple, nor for a long time afterwards. See Ben- zinger, Hcb. Arch. p. 401 n. On the other hand, there was in the latter temple a table-like altar of shewbread,€ which is more fully described than that of the hrst temple. See art. Incense, vol. ii. p. 467^