The temple police. — The charge of the sacred enclosure was in the hands of the priests and Levites. The head of police — the captain of the temple 7 — held so digniUed a position that he was ranked with the chief priests. The entire external arrangements of the temple were under his autho- rity. We read in Marko and Luket of 'rulers of the temple,' who were subordinates of 'the captain.' The guardianship of the temple was entrusted mainly to Levites, but partly also to priests. By day they were to see that no one overstepped the bound.ary beyond which he had no right to go, e.g. Gentiles had to be kept out of the inner court, women out of the men's, laymen out of the priests', and non-olliciating priests out of the house ; the debir to be entered but once a year, and even then by the high priest only. By night the gates were all shut, and none were allowed within except priests and Levites, who were stationed at diller- ent points. Three places of the inner court were guarded by priests ; at twenty-one positions Levites kept watch, especially at the various gates. Dur- ing the whole night the captain walked around to see that each was at his jjost. If the guard did not imniediatelj' arise on the captain's approach, the captain exclaimed, ' Peace to you.' If the guard were asleep the captain would strike him with a stick, and he had the right even to set fire to his clothes. Each day the guards were chan|zed, those who followed receiving the keys from their predecessors at niid-day.f The senior of the men in charge kept the key of the court, in which the men were sentry, in a hole covered by a marble slab, to the under side of which was fastened a chain : the key was attached to this chain.
When the time came to close the gates, the marble slab was lifted and the key taken : the priests locked the inner court, replacing the key in the usual place. On the slab under which the key was, the guard in charge laid his clothes, and on them Lay down to slucp.ij How many were at one time in charge of the enclosure we do not know, but according to Josephus 200 men were ai)pointed for the gates alone.
For the fate which befell the temple in the last years of its existence, reference must be made to the histories of Josephus, Griitz, and others. See, especially, short but striking accounts in Cornill, History of the People of Israel, d and Cheyne, JRL.i Already, in the days of Archelaus, the courts of the temple became the scene of revolt and
« Nidd. 111. S, T. S ; Tarn. UL 6 ; S>\rk. vi. 4. fi Krlim i. a >• Ac «' 62**.
) 623. < %*».
C Jo9. e. Apion. IL 8. « iluld. I. 8.
( Chia^o, 189S. i Now York and LondoD, ISM
ri6
TEJIPT, TEAIPTATION
TENDER
bloody massacres.a During the last Jewish revolt tlie most horrid scenes were witnessed. In A.D. 70 Roman soldiers were in possession of the fortress of Antonia, close to the enclosure One of them, though contrary to the wish of Titus the emperor, tlirew a firebrand into the liouse itself, wliich took fire and burned to the ground. Tlius perished the last of the Jerusalem temples. All or them were built by a people feeble politically, in art and in literature (e.xcept religious) despised ; yet these temples are better known, and their records more fully preserved, th.in is the case with any other ancient temple, Egyptian, Assyrian, or Indian.
LiTERATFRE.— (A) JEWISH ITfl/T'/ArrpS.— Josephus, Ant. XV. xi., BJ V, V. ; cf. Spiess, JJer Tempel zu Jerusalem nacii Joite- phu3, ISiiO ; the Mislinic tract. Stiddotk ; cf. Rabbi iJildersheim, Dig Ueschreibutuf des Herod's Tempcl im Tractat Middot mid bei Flaviits Josi'pfnus (' Jahreshenchi des Rabbiner-Seminara fiir das Ortbodox Judenthum,' Berlin, 1876-77). There is a good edition of Middoth (no Gemara has been handed down) with Latin tr. and Com. by L'Empereur (Lugd. IJat. . . . 1630, small 4to). See also Sureuhusius' ilishjia. Mainionides, in part vi. of his npTn T, gives the Rabbiuical traditions regarding the temple, its furniture, priests, etc. This was put into Latin by Ludwig Conipiegne, and is found in vol. viii. of Ugolinus' AiUiquitates HeWaicai. Monographs on the temple have been written in Hebrew by O. Altschul (Amst. 1724) and others, but none of them are of much importance.
(B) ClIBlSTlAX iV RITI.VGS.—Of the Older treatises by Christian writers the following are noteworthy : — Villalpando and Prado, Jn Ezech. 3 vols. 1605 ; Capellus, Tf^eiytov .^'tte Tnptex 2'empli DeliiuUio (Amst. 1643 ; also included in the Introd. to the London Polyglot) ; Lamy, de Tabeniacido Foederis, de Sancta Oioitate Jeriufalem et de Templo ejus (Paris, 172U); Lightfoot (Dr. John), Deacr. TempU Hieros. (Eng. in vol. ix. of Pitman's edition of his works in English ; also published separately, Lond. 1825), — Lightfoot uses the Rabbinical material, but deals mainly with the temple of Herod; Lund, Die aiteii Jud. HeiiUjtkiitner, Hamb. 1695, bk. ii. (several other editions). For a detailed recital of the older literature see Winer, RWB'^, 8. ' Tempel,' and Bahr, Der Tempel Saiomo's. The following are the most important modern treatises: — Hirt, Der Tempel Salonio'St Berlin, 1809 (strong on the architectural side, but deficient in Biblical scholai*6hip) ; J. Fr. von Meyer, Der Temp. Salom.t Berlin, 1830; Stieglitz, Gesch. der Baukunst, Niirn. 1827, p. 127 ff., Beitnuje zur Ausbildumj der Baiikmist, Leipz. 1834 ; Biihr, Der Temp. Sal. 1848 ; Keil, Der Temp. Sal., Dorpat, 1839 (critical and constructive, valuable), Biblica.1 Archaeology, T. and T. Clark, i. 10211. ; Robinson, BR}' (1841) i. 415ff. ; O. Williams, The Holy City (1849), ii. 296ff. ; Fergus- son, Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jenisalem, 1847, The Holy Sepulchre and the Tomb, 181)5, The Temples of the Jews, 1875, art. 'Temple' in Smith's /)/? (Fergusson's fanciful views as to the site of the temple, etc., have failed to win con- viction except to a ven' limited extent) ; Warren, The TempU and the Tomli, ISSO, fSlSA vii. S09flf. (in both he answ»rs the arguments of Fergusson); T. H. Lewis, 2'he Holy f laces 0/ Jerusalem, 1880; Th. Fricdrich, Tempel u. I'alast Saturn. etc., Innsb. 1887; O. Wolff, Der Tempel otm Jerusalem urul seine Maase, 1SS7; Stade, Gesch. i. 311 tl. (the author, an acknowledged Biblical scholar, was aided by his colleague von Kilgen, professor of architecture) ; Perrot et Chipiez, Le Temple de Sol., Paris, 1889, large folio, with tine diagrams; History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, etc., London, 1890, i. 142ff. ; Conrad Schick, Die Sti/lshutte der Tempel in Jerus. wnd der Tempel- filatz der jetz. Zeit, Ber. 1896 (by an architect; the scholarship js weak, and proof references almost wholly wanting, though the constructions and plans are good). In addition to the older treatises on Bibtie.al Arch^voloi/y by Jahn (in English also), de Wette(4th and last edition ininroved by Riibiger, 1864), Allioli, and Keil (cf. also Spencer, de LeiiiOus, Disscrtatio Sf^ta), note particularly the works by Benzinger and Nowack, both issued in 1894, and based on the latest results. Nowack'a work is the fuller, but Beiizinger's the more compact and interesting. See also the Commentaries and other works referred to in the course of this article. T. W. DaVIES.