XL Literature. — As we have said above, the two clas- sical authorities on the Temjile are the general descrip- tion of Josejihus (Ant. xv, 11, and War, v, 5) and the minute account of the Herodian building in the Tal- mudic tract Middoth (Mishna, v, 10), which has been edited and commented upon by L'Empereur of Op- pyck (Lugd. Bat. 1630, 4to). Among the older works on the subject we especially name vols, viii and ix of Antiquitates Hehraiae, by Ugolino, which contain, in addition to other dissertations, Moses Maimonides, Con- sfitiitiones de Duma Electa; Abraham ben -David, De Templo ; see also Schulze, 7^e Variis Judcvorum Errori- bus in Descriptioiie Teiiipli Secundi (F. ad i\L 1756; also prefixed to his edition of Ueland, De Spoliis Templi I/ierosoli/mitani [Ultraj. 1716]); Hasenrafer, Templum Ezech. (Tiibing. 1613); Villalpando and Prado, In Eze- chiel ; Jud. Leo, Libri Quatitor de Templo Ilieros. tarn Priori quam Poster, ex Hcbr. hat. Vers, a J. Saubert (Helmst. 1665, 4to); Cappellus, Tpio-nyioi/, m-e Triplex Templi Delineatio (Amst. 1643, 4to; also inserted in the Critici Am/licani, vol. viii, and in vol. i of Walton's Polyglot) ; Ilarenberg, In d. Brem. u. Verdisch. L'ibliotk.
TEMPLE
266
TEMPORAL POWER
iv, 1 sq., 573 ?q., 879 s(i. ; Laniy, De Tahern. Fceil, Urbe j/ieios.H (le Templo (I'ar. 17-JO sq.) ; Cremer, De ^alom. Templo (Hanlerov. 174«) ; Ernesti, JM Templo Herod. (Lips. 1752) ; Grulick, De Diciiio in Templo Ezec/i. Con- silio (Vitemb. 1775). Monographs on the Temple in Hebrew have been written by C. Altschul (Amst. 1724), J. M. Altschul (ibid. 1782), W. Altschul (SkU.v, 1794; Warsaw, 1814), Leone (Amst. 1(500 ; ]MidiUH). 1(542; in Latin bv Sauburt [lleliiist. lt5G5]), llcllcr (Prague, 1(502; V. ad M. 1711). Chefez (Ven. 1(59(5), Wiliia (^Sklov, 1802), Snizler (Lond. 1825). The principal later works on the subject are those of Lightt'oot, Descriptio Templi J/iero- solyinitaiii, in 0pp. i, 533 sq.; Hirt, Der Tempel Salo- mons (Berlin, 1809, 4to) ; Stieglitz, Gesch. der Buuknnst (Nuremb. 1827), p. 125 scj.; Less, Beitrage zur Gesclnch. d. ausbild. Jiinduii.1t (Leips. 1834), i, (53 s(]. ; Meyer, /Vr Tempel ^S'afow. (Berlin, 1830; inserted also in Blatter f. kohere Wahrheit, \) ; Grtineisen, in the Kunstblatt z. Morgenhl. 1831, No. 73-75, 77-80. Other works are mentioned by Meusel, Biblioth. IJistor. i; ii, 113 sq.; and Winer, Realwdrterb. s. v. " Tempel." See also Ben- nett, The Temple of Ezekiel (Lond. 1824) ; Isreels, Eze- kieVs Temple (ibid! 1827); Kirchner, Der Tempel zu Je- ms. (Neu-Ebers. 1834) ; El-Sinti, Hist, of the Temple (from the Arabic by Reynolds, Lond. 1837); Keil, Der Tempel Salomons (Dorp". 1839); Kopp, id. (Stuttgart, 1839); the Stud. u. Krit. 1844, ii, 320, 361; Thenius, Erkldi: d. Konige, in the Kurzijef. exeij. Hundb. ix, Anhang, p. 25 sq. ; Biihr, Der Salom. Tempel (Carlsr. 1848); Balmer-Kinck, Gesch.d. Tempel- A rchitectur (Lud- wigsb. 1858). The latest works are those of Bannis- ter, The Temples of the Nebreu-s (Lond. 1861); Paine, Solomons Temple, etc. (Bost. 1861) ; Unruh, D. (dte Je- ius.u.s. Bauwerke (Lagcnsatz, 1861) ; Rosen, Der Tem- pel-Platz des Moria ((iotha. 1866); Fergusson, The Temples of the Jews (Lond. 1878). This last and most pretentious etfort at reconstructing the Jewish Temple is thoroughly vitiated by two favorite preconceptions of the aullior — namely, a false location of the structure at the south-west angle of the Haram, and an over- weening estimate of modern architectural taste as a guide on so ancient a subject. Thus he flippantly dis- misses the explicit and repeated Rabbinical statement of tlie dimensions of the Court of the Women as " ab- surd" (p. 98) and "impossible" (p. 117), because it can- not be gi)t within his imaginary "rectangle 600 feet square" (Joscphus's round number for the entire Tem- ple area). He falsely asserts that this Rabbinical ac- count "is borrowed avowedly, but unintelligently, from Ezekiel" (p. 117), ignoring the fact that the INIishna, which contains these measurements, has come down, traditionally if not in writing, from contemporaries of Herod's Temple itself. What a pity that these author- ities, or even Herod himself, did not have the benefit of such learned criticism on their work !
TEMPLE. This name was scarcely ever used in the first three ages by any Christian writer for a church, but only for the heathen temples; but when idolatry was destroyed, and temples were purged and consecrat- ed as Christian churches, then tlie writers of the fol- lowing ages freely gave them the name of temples. At first no idol temples were made use of as churches, but were generally tolerated until the twenty-fifth year of Constantine, A.D. 333. In that year he published his laws commanding the destruction of temples, altars, anil images. This policy was continued until the reign of Thcodosius, when another method was adopted, and we finil the emperor turning the famous temple of He- liopolis, called Balanium, into a Christian church. Ho- norius (A.D. 408) published two laws forbidding the de- struction of temples in the cities, because, being purged, they might serve for ornament or public use. Bede (lib. i, c. 30) tells us "that (iregory the (ireat gave Austin the monk instructions about the temples among the Saxons in Britain, that if thev were well built they should not be destroyed, but only converted to tlie ser- vice of the true God." Sometimes the temples were
pulled down, and the materials were given to the Church, out of which new edifices were erected for the service of religion. Sometimes additions were made, to the emoUnnents of the clergy by the donation of heathen temples and the revenues that were settled upon them, although the latter were usually appropriated by the emperors themselves. See IViu^ham, Christ. Anliq.hli, v, ell. iv, § 10; bk. viii, ch. i, § 6; ch. ii, § 4.