li Hertholet(Hee on 4011- 13) ifivert no (rood reason for niakinir the breadth (lO/.ekiel'M len^'lh) other than 10cubit«. \\\» iniu- applied in^enuit^s ariflen from his aoocptanca of 40"'* which Smend ftndfCornlll rightly reject.
I nn 40', AV ' little cha-nbor" ; BV 'lodge,' 'guard chamber.' « 1 K 1438, o(. 2 K 11«. ), Si3| Elk 40".
VOU IV. — 4«
there were 'posts' (EV) or 'wall fronts 'o (A. B. Davidson) (Fig. 6, J J J J), which from guard-room to guardroom were 5 cubits. There were four in all — two on each side. Their use was purely archi- tectural. At the west end of the guard-rooms there was a second threshold /3 (7'), the same in all respects a-s the other, but acting as threshold to one entering from the outer court, as the other did to one entering from the outside.
We now enter the porch {P), an empty space 8 cubits long (E. to W.), c rf, and 20 broad (N. to S.),7 ki. The breadth of the gateway all along ibs length was 10 cubits,5 e.\cept where the l>arriers occur : these occupying a cubit each side wotild reduce the distance between the guard-rooms from barrier to barrier (m m n n) to 8 cubits. The length of the gateway, leaving out the steps, which are not counted, was 50 cubit8,e and it was wholly roofed, as may be gathered from the fact that guard-rooms and intervening ' posts' required windows. The length of the gateway is thus maxie up —
Outer threshold (T)ab . . . 3 guard-rooms (fr G G) . . • 2 'posta* or ' wall fronts' (J*0 • Inner threshold (2") n c
Porch (P)cd
'Posts' or 'wall fronts' (J'J')dt
Total
. 6 cubit*.
. 18 ..
. 10 „
- 6 „
• 8 „
. S ..
. CO cubits.
Windows. — According to Ezk 40" there were windows in the guard-rooms, in the 'posts' be- tween them, and in the porch. Those of the guard- rooms looked out into the court, and lighted at once the rooms themselves and also the adjoining gateway.^ The windows in the ' posts ' extended all through their thickness of 6 cubits. If these posts were solid walls, it must have been so, and not, as Davidson's diagram j; represents, a mere oiieiiirig on the outside wall. On the nature and function of the windows see above. There must liave been windows on the north and south of the porch, and probably the ' post ' walls had them too. See Fig. 6. '1 he end ' posts ' (d e) had palm trees engraved on them. 9
The north and south gates are said to have been exactly like the eastern gate, and so did not need separate descriptiim.
Uutcr i-Murt. — For remarks on the function and sigiiiticance of the outer court see above. And
• 4010 a-y^f ; L.X.X «.>i/«, $ VP.
r The widti) of the porch (N. to S.) is not given In the MT. In Ezk -IMi-t, however, we read, ' He made also posts of *10 cubit*.' Kliefoth, followed by lienor., Keil, Schroder (Lan^c). Perrot and Chipiez — [see their restorations] — and others defend the text as it stands. The two * posts ' at the end of the porch were like churcli steeples — so says Kliefotli ; and it was such gate pillars that HUK'Kest^'d our i^luirch steeples. Hut the 'posts' in question formed no part of the sanctuary, as chun^h steeples usually do: unless, indeed, Kl. was thinkinfj of the campamU or bell-tower churches, such as is to be seen at Chichester, etc It is fur more sensible to emend the text with the aid of the LXX, and to
read, 'And he measured the porch (changing 0'7'y 'Him to
crx 'fMm)20oublt»'; i.e. In breadth— the other measurements have been piven : thus Smend, Comill, Davidson, and llertholet. This woulilleave 6 cubits for the two side walls, {.(!. 2A cubits apiece. The ' Jaml»s ' or posts towards the outside (d «) are said to have had a thickness of t cubits. I 4Ull».
• Kzk 4015. The statement in v." that the gateway was 26 cubits, thoupfh supported by the Versions, is in direct collision with v. 16, and must, vs'ith Smend and Comill, bo rejected as an inti'rpolation. Butt., llitz., lluv., and Keil retain, however, and explain thus : the whole gateway (lyv*) consisted of a covered portion at each end, with an unroofe<i space in the middle. It Is, they bold, the covered part that is meant in v. 13. Hut if so, why is this not stated? Bortholet's defence of the words requires a noii-nalural interpretation of the verse.
{ The ' barrier ' was probabl;v a wall sulflclently low tor the Utrht to pass over it. There Is nothing in the text opposed to this. There mi(;ht have been windows in the barrier lt«eil ; Uils is likely If the barrier walls were high.
• C<mt.p.£M. «E£k40U.".n.
706
TEMPLE
TEMPLE
for considerations showing that the first temple had but one court, see ' Court ' under SOLOMoys 'TliilFLE. The outer court was comparatively free from buildings. Besides the iiortli, east, and south gates, it had 30 cells a ranged along its outer walls.
The 30 cells (Fig. 5, 1. 2. 3, etc.) which went around the court were used for keeping utensils and provisions, and served also as residences for the pricsts.^S They were also used for sacrificial feasts. The ancient high places had connected with them a festive chamber, where sacrificial meals were partaken