Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Temple
TEMPLE.The temple is an institution common to religions of natural growth which have reached a certain stage, and in most languages bears a name expressing that it is the house or palace erected by men as a habitation for their god [1] (Greek, ναός; Hebrew, hēkal, “palace,” or bēth ĕlōhīm, “house of God”; Latin, ædes sacræ). In this connexion the term “house of God” has quite a different sense from that which we connect with it when we apply it to a Christian place of worship. A temple is not a meeting-place for worshippers; for many ancient temples were open only to priests, and as a general rule the altar, which was the true place of worship, stood not within the house but before the door. The temple is the dwelling-house of the deity to which it is consecrated, whose presence is marked by a statue or other sacred symbol; and in it his sacred treasures, the gifts and tribute of his worshippers, are kept, under the charge of his attendants or priests. Again, a temple implies a sanctuary; but a sanctuary or holy spot does not necessarily contain a temple. A piece of land may be reserved for the deity without a dwelling-house being erected to him upon it, and a sacred tree, stone, or altar, with the holy precinct surrounding it, may be recognized as a place where the worshipper can meet his god and present his offerings, although no temple is attached. Indeed the conception of a holy place, separated from profane use, is older than the beginnings of architecture; and natural objects of worship, such as trees and stones, which need no artificial protection or official keeper, are older than images enshrined under roofs and protected by walls and doors. All antique religion is essentially altar-worship (see Sacrifice), and for ritual purposes the altar always continued to be the true centre of the sanctuary. But the altar is only a modification of the sacred stone (comp. Priest, vol. xix. p. 726), and it has already been observed that, even in later times, the chief altar of a sanctuary stood outside the temple. In the oldest and most primitive forms of religion the sacred stone is at once the place where gifts are offered and the material sign of the presence of the deity; thus the temple with its image belongs to a later development, in which the significance of the sacred stone is divided between the altar outside the door and the idol, or its equivalent, within. But in many very ancient sanctuaries the place of a temple is taken by a natural or artificial grotto (e.g., the Phœnician Astarte grottoes, the grotto of Cynthus in Delos), or else the temple is built over a subterranean opening (as at Delphi); and, while this may be in part explained as connected with the cult of telluric deities, or the worship of the dead, it seems not unreasonable to think that in their origin cave temples may date back to the time when caves were commonly used as human habitations, that the altar in front of the temple had its prototype in altars at the mouths of sacred caves, which were approached with holy fear and not entered by ordinary worshippers, and that thus some of the main features of the ancient temple were fixed from the first by the analogy
of more primitive sanctuaries. The influence of the cave temple seems at least to be undeniable in that widespread type of sanctuary in which, besides the court for the worshippers and an outer chamber, there was a dark and mysterious inner room, an adytum or Holy of Holies. This type is found in Egypt (see ARCHITECTURE, vol. ii. p. 388 and plate VII.), among the Semites, as in the temple at Jerusalem and in that of Hierapolis (De Dea Syr., 31), and also among the Greeks and Romans. In Greece the adytum was not a universal feature, though large temples usually had an antechamber as well as the cella or proper chamber of the god. But, where an oracle was given, or mysteries were celebrated, an adytum was always found, and one of its names was peyapov, which seems to be a transcription of a Semitic word for a cave (meghara). Certain adyta in Greece were actually sub terranean; and the association of oracles with caves is well known.
The architectural features and plan of temples in various parts of the world have been illustrated at length in the article Architecture, and need not detain us here, but some further notice of the successive temples at Jerusalem is called for by the unique interest of the subject, while a glance at the topographical problems connected with this holy site is necessary to supplement the article Jerusalem.
Solo- 1 . The Temple of Solomon. There were temples among mon s the Hebrews before the time of Solomon, whether private, temple. ^ Q ^^ of j^^ (Judges xv ii. 5) ? Or public, like that of Shiloh, where the ark was housed for a time (see Tabernacle). In this, as in other matters, the Israelites must have learned from the Canaanites, who had large temples in the time of the Judges. The “hold” (vault?) of the temple of El-Berith at Shechem was the place of refuge for a thousand men (Judges ix. 46 sq.), and at Gaza there was a vast temple with a roof supported on two middle pillars (Judges xvi. 29). Solomon s enterprise was not therefore absolutely novel, and in point of size his temple can hardly have surpassed those just mentioned. But his subjects were much behind the Canaanites and Philistines in the constructive arts, and as Solomon had to call in the aid of Tyrian craftsmen it cannot be questioned that the design was derived from Tyrian architecture. The general plan, indeed, of the house or “palace” (hekal) of Jehovah, with an adytum (deblr, E.V. “oracle”), an outer chamber, and an altar before the door, is, as we have seen, common to many countries, especially in temples which had an oracle, as was the case with Solomon's temple, built to contain the ark. But all the distinctive features are Phoenician, or at least characteristic of the northern Semites, of whose art the Phoenicians were then the lead ing exponents. For the general arrangements the temple of Hierapolis (Mabbog), described by Lucian, offers a complete parallel. Like that of Solomon, it faced the east, and had two cellse and a pronaos. The interior was enriched with gold work. Before the door stood a brazen altar within a walled court. The walled court is a con stant feature in the Phoenician and Syrian temples, known to us from their remains or from coins, 1 and the golden decorations, the portico, and the brazen altar appear in the ancient temple of Byblus and in other Phoenician shrines (C.I.S., Nos. 2, 143). The chief motives in the internal decoration of Solomon s temple were the palm tree and the cherub. The former is one of the commonest Phoenician symbols, and the Phoenician associations of the latter are clear from Ezek. xxviii. The cherub, in fact, is only a variety of the sphinx, and the way in which the palm and winged animal figures were combined in 1 See T. L. Donaldson, Architectura Numismatica (London, 1859); Renan, Mission de PMnicie; Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, de V Art, vol. iii. Fig. 1. Phoenician decoration is shown in a fragment of alabaster preserved in the Louvre and here figured (fig. 1) after Perrot (op. cit., iii. 131). Two cherubs with outstretched wings stood in the adytum to form a baldachin over the ark. Baldachins over the image or symbol of the deity existed in other temples of the northern Semites (Donaldson, op.cit., pp. 73, 76 iq., 99), and in many Phoe nician works of art (e.g., on the stele of Byblus) the figure or symbol of a deity is overshadowed by the winged disk (an Assyrian sym bol of godhead) ar ranged as a sort of canopy (Menant, Glyptique Oriental, ii. 231, 238).
The adytum of the temple was a cube of 20 cubits each way; the outer chamber was of the same breadth, but 40 cubits long and 30 high. 2 The portico was of the breadth of the main building and 10 cubits deep. That the two chambers were separated by a solid wall and not by a mere wooden partition may be taken as certain if, with Stade, we understand 1 Kings vi. 31 to say that the doorway of the adytum was pentagonal, i.e., that instead of a horizontal lintel a rude arch of two blocks was introduced to distribute the pressure of the superincumbent wall. In this case it is not likely that the exterior walls of the adytum were carried up to a height of 30 cubits, so as to allow of a continuous roof. The reduction of the dimensions to English feet is approximately determined by the Siloam inscription, which gives a round number of 1200 cubits for a measured length of 1760 feet. The Hebrew cubit, therefore, was the short cubit of antiquity, and for practical purposes may be taken as equal to the Greek cubit of 18 inches, used by Josephus for the measurements of Herod s temple. Thus the roof-beams of the temple had a span of 30 feet, a length sufficient to make it probable that the wooden pillars spoken of in 1 Kings x. 1 2 (comp. 2 Kings xviii. 16) were employed to support them. The roof of the temple at Gaza rested on pillars, as we have seen, and wooden pillars seem to have been used within the temple at Golgus (Cesnola, Cyprus, p. 139), which was smaller than that of Jerusalem. A peculiar feature in Solomon s temple was that all its sides except the front were surrounded by three stories (each 5 cubits high) of small chambers, 5 cubits wide on the ground floor, 6 on the first floor, and 7 on the second, the increasing breadth being evidently got by reducing the thickness of the walls by 1 cubit at each floor. 3 Thus, allowing for the walls, the external measurements of the house cannot have been much less than 45 cubits by 90. The aspect of the facade can only be conjecturally determined. Several Phoenician temples, known from coins, show on their facade a high-pitched gable (Byblus, Tripolis), and that of Tripolis has also a flat-roofed wing on each side of the gable and portico, which would answer to the ends of the side chambers in 2 The description of the temple in 1 Kings is often obscure and the text is not always sound. Cp. Stade s essay in Z. f. ATliche Wiss., 1883, p. 129 sq. 3 In such small chambers the winding stair (1 Kings vi. 8) can hardly have been more than a vertical post with footholds nailed to it (Prof. J. H. Middleton). our temple. But perhaps the closest analogy to the frontispiece of Solomon's temple is the often-cited one of the temple at Paphos, of which a representation from a coin is an nexed (fig. 2). Here the portico be tween the side wings is flanked by two slender towers, and in the end of the nave above the door there are square-topped windows. Solo mon s temple had " windows of beams " (or " with horizontal lin tels ") " framed in," which, as Pro fessor J. H. Middleton observes, is Fi - 2 - naturally explained on the analogy of the windows be tween the beams in the wooden gables of Coptic churches. This is the obvious position of openings for light in buildings the type of which was derived from wooden constructions, and we know that the oldest Phoenician temples were, at least in great part, of wood (Utica ; Pliny, H.Jr. t xvi. 79 ; comp. Jos., C. Ap., i. 17, 18, and Solo mon s house of the forest of Lebanon). That Solomon s temple had towers cannot be proved, for the height of the porch is not given in Kings, and the 1 20 cubits of 2 Chron. iii. 4 is obviously an excessive figure, due to a mistake of the writer or of a copyist. But the fact that in Ezekiel s ideal temple the door-posts of the porch are 5 cubits broad makes the existence of slender turrets like those of Paphos on each side of the portal probable. Another feature of Solomon s temple is exactly reproduced at Paphos. On each side of the door the coin shows a fantastic pillar standing free. Solomon erected two such pillars of bronze, 18 cubits high (1 Kings vii. 15 sq.), w ith capitals of "lily work," i.e., adorned with lotus flowers, like the Phoenician capital from Cyprus figured by Perrot (op. cit., p. 116). Such twin pillars or twin stelae in stone are of constant occurrence in Phoenician sacred art, and are still familiar to us as the Pillars of Hercules. In Solomon s temple both the oracle and the outer cella had folding doors. In the second and third temples the inner door was replaced 1>y a vail (parokheth), and a vail also hung before the outer door (Mai. i. 10 ; 1 Mac. i. 22, iv. 51 j B. J., v. 5, 4 sg.). The Chronicler (2 Chron. iii. 14) introduces a vail in the first temple. This feature also seems to be common to the temple with other Semitic shrines (comp. C.I.S., No. 86, DD~ID, Assyr. parakku, Syriac prakke, "shrines," and the Kaaba at Mecca). 1 The temple had an inner court of its own (1 Kings vi. 36), but the outer or great court (1 Kings vii. 12) was the court of the palace as well as of the sanctuary. Details as to the position of the courts and buildings must be reserved till we speak of the site, but it may be noticed that Jer. xxxvi. 10 speaks of the "higher court," to which the " new gate " of the temple belonged. This new gate in the higher court can hardly be different from the " higher gate " built by Jotham (2 Kings xv. 35), or from the "higher gate" of Benjamin, which, in Jer. xx. 2, is not the city gate of that name, but a gate "in" (not "by" as E.V. ) "the house of the Lord." From its name this gate must have been on the north side or at the north-east angle of the temple area, so that the ground rose to the north or north-east. The upper court may be merely the upper part of the great court near the "higher gate" leading to the palace (2 Chron. xxiii. 20), or may be the same as the " new court " of 2 Chron. xx. 5. But one cannot be sure that the Chronicler is not transferring to Jehoshaphat s time a new court of the second temple. We know, however, that the kings of Judah made from time to time considerable changes in and about the temple. 2. The Temple of Zerubbabel. After the captivity an altar of stone took the place of the brazen altar, or rather perhaps of the altar of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 10 sq.). The altar was erected immediately after the return (Ezra iii. 1 Cp. also the vail of Assyrian tissue given by Antiochus to the temple at Olympia (Pausan., v. 12, 4), which Ganneau (Quarterly Statement, April 1878) boldly identifies with the vail of the temple that Antiochus Epiphanes carried off from Jerusalem (1 Mac., i. 22 ; Jos., Ant., xii. 5, 4). 2) ; but the rebuilding of the temple was long delayed, and the work was not completed till 520 B.C. (see HAGGAI). It was much inferior to the first temple in magnificence, though not perhaps in size (Haggai ii. 3). The proposed breadth of 60 cubits and height of 60 cubits spoken of in Ezra vi. 3 would indeed imply that it was larger than the first temple, but in view of the testimony of Haggai (loc. cit.) it seems unlikely that these dimensions were realized by Zerubbabel. The first temple resembled other temples of antiquity in being built to contain a visible symbol of the presence of the deity, namely, the ark, which stood in the inner chamber. In the second temple the adytum was empty, but the idea that the Godhead was locally present in it still found expression in the continuance of the altar service, in the table of showbread (a sort of continual lectisternium) that stood in the outer chamber, and above all in the annual ritual of the day of atonement, when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of the expiatory sacrifice on behalf of the people. Not only in this point but in all others the ritual of the second temple was dominated by the idea of priestly mediation, and the stated sacrifices of the priests on behalf of the people, which replaced the old stated oblations of the kings, became the main feature of the altar service. The first temple was primarily the royal chapel, and the kings did as they pleased in it ; the second temple was the sanctuary of the priests, whose chief now became the temporal as well as the spiritual head of the people. In the time of Ezekiel not only laymen but uncircumcised foreigners entered the sanctuary and acted as servants in the sacred offices (Ezek. xliv. 7) ; in the second temple the laity were anxiously kept at a distance from the holy things, and even part of the court around the altar was fenced off by a barrier, which only the priests were allowed to cross (Joseph., Ant., xiii. 13, 5). Being no longer hemmed in by the royal buildings, as the first temple had been (Ezek. xliii. 8), its precincts could be expanded to suit the necessities of the enormous host of ministers of various ranks demanded by the growing complexity of the ritual, which, in matters of music and the like, was immensely developed as time went on (comp. PSALMS). Herod s temple, with the dependent buildings, was a little city enclosed in its own fortifications. But long before his time the temple was a sort of priestly citadel, the fortress as well as the sanctuary of the hierocracy ; and the sacred offerings which flowed to Jerusalem from Jews in all parts of the world were lavishly expended on enlarg ing and strengthening it (Jos., B.J., v. 5, 1). The name of Simon II. (c. 200 B.C.) is associated in Ecclus. 1. 1 sq. with important works of fortification on the circuit of the temple. Twice ruined in the wars with the Seleucids, these bulwarks were twice rebuilt, by Judas and Jonathan Maccabaeus (1 Mac. vi. 7; Jos., Ant., xiii. 5, 11). The works were further strengthened by Simon (1 Mac. xiii. 52), and at the time of Pompey s siege (63 B.C.) constituted an almost impregnable fastness, strengthened on its weakest or northern side by great towers and a deep ditch (Ant., xiv. 4, 2). Twenty-six years later the temple was again be sieged by Herod, who, attacking, like Pompey, from the north, had to force three lines of defence, the city wall and the outer and inner temple (Ant., xiv. 16, 2). Of the temple as it was in the Greek or the Hasmonean period we have two descriptions by Hellenistic Jews, Pseudo-Aristaeus (comp. SEPTUAGIXT) and Pseudo-Hecateus (Jos., C. Ap., i. 22). In such a matter we may suspect even notorious literary forgers of care lessness and exaggeration rather than of absolute untruth. Pseudo- Aristeeus describes the temple as surrounded by a triple circuit of walls more than 70 cubits high, and as further protected by the adjoining Acra, which overlooked the place of sacrifice. Comparing the account of Herod s siege, we may perhaps take the third circuit to be the wall of the town, which is represented as lying below the temple on the. same bill. The upper city on the western hill is ignored, which seems to show that the account was written before the Hasmonean period (comp. JERUSALEM, vol. xiii. p. 641), as has been argued on other grounds in SEPTUAGINT. The Acra, which is often mentioned in the history of the Maccabee wars, seems to have been on the same site as the Baris or castle of the Hasmonean priest-princes, where they put on their priestly robes before doing sacrifice (Ant., xv. 11, 4). That the Baris was close to the temple appears both from this circumstance and from the fact that Anti- fonus was charged with setting fire to the porticoes of the temple uring the siege by Herod (Ant., xiv. 16, 2), an accusation which would have had no plausibility unless the destruction of the porticoes had been useful to isolate the castle. Pseudo-Hecatseus gives the temple precincts a length of 500 feet and a breadth of 100 cubits. The explanation of these numbers will appear in the sequel. Herod s 3. The Temple of Herod. In the eighteenth year of his temple. re i gn (20-19 B.C.) Herod the Great began to rebuild the temple and its precincts from the foundation, doubling the old area (Ant., xv. 11 ; Bell. Jud., i. 21). The works included the reconstruction, on the old site, of the Baris, which now received the name of Antonia, and is generally reckoned by Josephus as forming part of the temple precincts. Apart from the Antonia, the temple area formed a quadrangular plateau supported by retaining walls of great height and strength, and surrounded by porticoes. Three of the porticoes were double walks, 30 cubits broad, with monolith pillars 25 cubits high, and cedar roofs; the fourth or southern portico (the Stoa Basilica) had four rows of Corinthian pillars and three walks, respectively 30, 45, and 30 cubits in breadth. The middle walk was twice the height of the aisles, and the latter were 50 feet high. As regards the size of this enclosure, we are told by Josephus that the Stoa Basilica was a stadium or GOO feet long (Ant., xv. 11, 5) ; and in Ant., xx. 9, 7, the same length is assigned to the eastern colonnade, which was known as Solomon s Porch (comp. John x. 23; Acts iii. 11 and v. 12), because it, and it alone, rested on an ancient substructure held to be the work of Solomon. The whole circuit of the porticoes was therefore 4 stadia, 1 or with the Antonia 6 stadia (B. J., v. 5, 2). The Antonia lay on the north side (Ant., xv. 11, 4) and communicated by stairs with the north and west porticoes at the north-west angle of the enclosure. Fergusson and others suppose that it touched the temple only at this angle, thence stretching north and west. But in this case the Antonia, which, as we shall see below, lay just north of Wilson s arch, would have been built over the hollow of the Tyropceon valley, a supposition absurd in itself and inconsistent with B.J., v. 5, 8, which says that it stood on a cliff. Again, the tower 70 cubits high that stood at the south-east angle of the Antonia overlooked the whole temple, just as we know from Pseudo-Aristaeus that the old Acra overlooked the altar. But, if the south-east angle of the Antonia had been, as Fergusson supposes, at the north-west angle of the temple porticoes, the view from the tower would have been intercepted by the lofty porch in front of the Holy Place. The Antonia, therefore, had its south face along part of the north face of the temple enclosure, and to gain a circuit of 6 stadia for temple and Antonia together we must assign to the latter the length of a stadium from north to south. This is not too much, for Josephus describes it as a little town in itself (B.J., v. 5, 8). The Antonia, the porticoes, and the space immediately within them (the outer court, or, as modern writers call it, the court of the Gentiles) were not holy ground. But in 1 This measurement (Ant., xv. 11, 3) has often been taken to refer to Solomon s temple. But this view is not demanded by the words of Josephus, and is inconsistent with the other measurements he gives and with B.J., v. 5, 1, which states that the plateau was levelled up by Solomon only on the east. This from the lie of the contour lines makes a plateau 600 feet square impossible. The Mishnah makes the "mountain of the house" a square of 500 cubits, apparently borrowing from Ezekiel. the middle of the enclosure there was a platform raised 15 cubits above the court of the Gentiles and fenced off by a barrier, with inscriptions, one of which still exists (Palestine E. F. Quarterly Statement, 1871, p. 132), forbid ding aliens to pass on pain of death. The platform was approached by steps on all sides but the west (B.J., v. 1, 5, and 5, 2), and was surrounded by a wall, rising 25 cubits above the inner level, and pierced by four gates on the north side and as many on the south. On the west there was no gate, but on the east that is, in front of the fane there were two, one within the other; for the eastern end of the platform was walled off to form a separate court for the women, at a somewhat lower level. One of the northern and one of the southern gates belonged to the court of the women, but it was also entered directly from the east by a very splendid gate of Corinthian brass, much more costly than the others, though they were overlaid with silver and gold. An enormous gate, 40 cubits wide and 50 high (gate Nicanor), connected the women s court with the higher part of the platform, or court of the men of Israel. The beautiful gate of Acts iii. 2 is variously identified with the first or second of these eastern portals. The walls of the platform were lined within with chambers, in front of which ran a splendid colonnade ; and the gate ways were connected with the colonnade by small lofty halls (exedrse), which from without had a tower-like aspect. It is doubtful whether all the gates had exedrae, ; but, on the other hand, there was such a hall also at the west end where no gate opened. In the court of the men i.e., in the upper and western part of the platform just described stood the fane or temple proper raised twelve steps above the court. For the ground plan of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies the ancient dimensions of Solomon s temple were preserved, and the external size demanded by the scale of the surroundings was gained by increasing their height, placing a lofty second story above them, making their walls and those of the surrounding chambers (corresponding to the chambers in the first temple) enor mously thick, and placing at the front or east end a porch 100 cubits wide and 100 cubits high. The open doorway of this porch was overlaid with gold, as was also the door of the fane and the wall round it. To the ornament of the entrance belonged also a golden vine with clusters of grapes as big as a man. In front of the fane beneath the steps was the great altar of stone, 50 (or, according to the Middoth, 32) cubits square and 15 high; it was as cended by a flight of steps from the south. The part of the court round the fane and the altar was fenced off for the use of the priests, and other Israelites were admitted only when the sacrificial ritual required the presence of the sacrificer. Besides the descriptions in Josephus, we have for Herod s temple a mass of details and measurements in the Mishnic treatise Middoth. Josephus was himself a priest, while the Mishnah was not written till a century after the destruction of the temple, though it uses traditions that go back to Levites who had served in the temple. The two sources differ in many measurements, and the Middoth appears to be possessed of detailed traditions only for the inner temple. The state of the evidence is not such as to allow a plan of the temple to be formed with architectural precision. The above account rests almost entirely on Josephus, who, apart from certain exaggerations in detail, gives a satisfactory general account, such as could be written from memory without notes and drawings. Herod s gigantic and costly structures were still in building, forty-six years after their commencement, when our Lord began His ministry (John ii. 20), and the works were not completed till the procuratorship of Albinus (62- 64 A.D.). In 66 the great revolt against Rome broke out, and in August 70 Jerusalem was taken by Titus and the temple perished in a great conflagration. 2 2 On 10 Ab ; but Jewish tradition celebrates 9 Ab as the day of the destruction of the temple. Topography. 4. Topography. It is not disputed that the site of the temple lay within the great Haram platform (see Jerusalem), now a Moslem holy place, and it is generally agreed also that the south-west corner of that platform is the south-west corner of Herod's outer plateau, parts of the southern and western retaining walls being confidently ascribed by experts to his age. But if Herod's temple (excluding the Antonia) was only 600 feet square it can have occupied but a small part of the Haram area, which measures about 1500 feet from north to south and 922 feet along the south wall. Moreover, the highest part of the hill, where the Dome of the Rock now stands, must have been outside and north of the temple enclosure. But this affords no good reason to doubt the accuracy of Josephus's measurements in a matter in which his memory could hardly fail him, and where his tendency would be rather to exaggerate than to diminish. There is no evidence that the eastern wall of the Haram is as old as Herod, much less as old as Solomon for the supposed Phoenician letters found on stones belonging to it are not letters at all, and may be of any date.[2] Moreover, there are various evidences of later building about the east wall of the Haram; the so-called Golden Gate is certainly a later construction, and Justinian's church rested on new substructures to the south and east (Procopius, De ^Ed., v. 6), which implies an extension eastward of the old platform. And this is confirmed by the fact that in the neighbourhood of the south-east angle the platform does not rest on solid substructures such as Josephus speaks of, but on the vaults known as Solomon's stables. Again, though the temple of Solomon lay above the town, there is no evidence that it was on the very top of the hill; on the contrary, buildings of the dimensions given in 1 Kings might have been placed on the hill-top without the need for such great substructures as are spoken of in 1 Kings vii. 10; and we have seen in speaking of the courts of the first temple that the ground appears to have risen to the north, the upper court being on that side.[3]
If we accept the measurements of Josephus we have to break with mediaeval tradition, both Moslem and Christian, which associates the Sakhra or rock under the dome on the top of the hill with the sacred site of the Jews. So much weight has been laid on this circumstance by writers of eminence that it is necessary here to go into some particulars and show that earlier tradition goes quite the other way. It is a Talmudic legend that in the Holy of Holies the place of the lost ark was taken by a stone called the "foundation stone." Further this stone was identified with Jacob's stone at Bethel (comp. Rashi on Gen. xxviii. and Breithaupt's notes). Both Mohammedans and Christians transferred these legends to the Sakhra, which the former accordingly venerated as "a gate of heaven" (Ibn Abd Eabbih, Ikd, iii. 369). Mohammedan sources enable us to trace back this identification to the Moslem Jew Wahb ibn Monabbih, who enriched Islam with so many Jewish fables and died a century after Jerusalem was taken by the Arabs (Tabari, i. 571 sq.; Ibn al-Fakih, p. 97 sq.). Eutychius, on the other hand, who is the first Christian writer to apply the Jewish legend to the Moslem Sakhra, avers that the tradition was communicated to Omar by the Christian patriarch Sophronius on the taking of Jerusalem, and guided the caliph in the choice of a site for his mosque. Eutychius wrote nearly three hundred years after this event; and, though it is known from earlier authorities (Arculphus, Theophanes) that the first Moslem mosque was built on what was pointed out as the site of the temple, it is equally certain, and was known to Eutychius himself, that that mosque lay to the south of the Sakhra (Eutychius, ii. 289), which was not embraced in the precincts of the Moslem sanctuary till the reign of Abd al-Malik, who built the dome, as an inscription with the date 691 still testifies (Ibid., p. 365). This is confirmed by the excellent Arabian historian Ibu Wadih (ii. 311). Abd al-Malik's motive was political, as both historians attest; Mecca being in the hands of a rival, he resolved to set up another place of pilgrimage to supplant the Kaaba, and recommended it to the faithful as the point from which the Prophet made his miraculous ascent from Jerusalem to heaven (Ibn Wadih, ut supra). There is nothing of the Jewish legend here; that, as we have seen, was supplied by Wahb in the next generation, and on his foundation there grew up a mass of other fables for which it is enough to refer to Ibn al-Fakih, p. 93 sq. From all this it may be taken as certain that at the time of Omar it was towards the south-west angle of the Haram, on the site of the original mosque, that tradition supposed the temple to have stood; indeed Eutychius is guilty of self-contradiction when he first says that Sophronius indicated the Sakhra to Omar as the site on which to build his mosque, and then adds that it was not part of the Moslem sanctuary till a generation later. Finally, the extension of the Haram to the north so as to bring the Dome of the Rock into the centre of the sacred area was the work of Abd al-Malik's son Walid (Eutychius, ii. 373).
Thus far we have met with nothing but confirmation of Josephus's measurements and the site they imply; but there are other topographical indications which supply confirmation more decisive. And first let us compare what is related of the outer gates of Herod's temple with existing remains. On the north was the gate Tadi of the Mishnah, which Josephus mentions only incidentally. This, like the gate Shushan on the east, which he does not mention at all, must have been of minor importance; the chief accesses were necessarily from the lower city to the south and the upper city to the west beyond the Tyropœon valley. The south wall, says Josephus, had gates in the middle (Ant., xv. 11, 5). The Mishnah names them the two gates of Huldah, which may mean "tunnel (weasel-hole) gates." There is a double gate in the substructure of the south wall, 350 feet from the south-west angle, and from it a double tunnel leads up to the platform. This double gate exactly fits Josephus's description. There is also a triple gate, 600 feet from the south-west angle, which those who suppose the wall to have been more than 600 feet long regard as the second Huldah gate. But this view does not give us two gates in the middle of the wall, especially as the old wall cannot have enclosed Solomon's stables. In the west side the Mishnah places one gate (Kiponus), while Josephus recognizes four. But these accounts are at once reconciled if we accept Josephus's measurements. For of his four gates the most southerly is necessarily the one which opened on a flight of steps descending and then reascending across the Tyropœon to the upper city opposite. Now at the south-west corner of the platform there are still remains of a great arch (Robinson's arch), which must have belonged to a bridge connecting the upper city with the south portico of the temple. Thus one of the four gates is fixed. The second gate led to Herod's palace (at the extreme north of the upper city) by means of an embankment crossing the Tyropœon (Ant., xv. 11, 5). Comparing B. /., ii. 16, 3, vi. 6, 2, and v. 4, 2, we see that the embankment also carried the city wall (the so-called first wall). Of this approach there are remains at Wilson's arch, 600 feet north of Robinson's arch[4]; thus, if Josephus's measurements are correct, the two western accesses were at the extreme ends of the western portico. Josephus's other two gates led to the suburbs outside the first wall, and therefore lay north of Wilson's arch, and were not gates of the temple enclosure proper but of the Antonia, which Josephus habitually reckons as part of the outer temple.[5] Of them the Mishnah would naturally take no account, and as naturally it would neglect the gate that led to the palace as being not a public entrance. But further, according to Josephus's account of the whole circumference of the temple with Antonia, the latter extended a stadium north of the north-west angle of the temple portico, i.e., 600 feet north of Wilson's arch; and, if we measure off this distance on a plan of the rock contours and then draw a line at right angles to represent the north face of the Antonia, we find that this line runs across the narrowest part of the saddle from which the temple hill is assailable. The breadth of the Antonia from east to west cannot have been more than about 300 feet if, as is to be presumed, the gate Tadi was opposite the twin gates of Huldah; but with this breadth it would entirely cover the dangerous saddle.
Every attempt to reconstruct the area and situation of the temple as it was before Herod must be more or less conjectural, and an analysis of the possibilities would take up so much space that it seems better simply to offer a plan which appears to satisfy the main conditions of the problem. A. Temple. B, B, B. Inner court. C, C, C. Great court. D, E. Porches of the king s house. F. Palace of Solomon. G. Great tower of prison court. H. House of the forest of Lebanon. J. Water gate. K. North court. L, L, L. New space taken in by Herod. MNPQ. Herod s enclosure. NP. Solomon s portico. PQ. Stoa Basilica or royal portico. P. Triple gate. Q. Robinson s arch. R. Double gate (Huldah gates). M. Wilson's arch.
According to this plan the area of the temple enclosure was doubled by Herod, his additions being in the parts where the work of levelling up was heaviest, and where neither the convenience of worshippers nor reasons of defence called on earlier builders to extend the plateau. It is certain that the substructures of the south-west angle, raised to a dizzy height above the Tyropoeon, are Herod s (Ant., xv. 11, 5), and Josephus also speaks of an extension to the north (B.J., v. 5, 1). But, on the other hand, the Baris already adjoined the temple, a condition which is satisfied by giving the older north court K (correspond ing to the new court of Chronicles, and perhaps also to the upper court of the first temple) a length from east to west of 300 feet and a breadth from north to south of 150. The old east face of the plateau is, as Josephus says, 600 feet long, but this length was gained after the time of Nehemiah by taking in the site of the armoury or house of the forest of Lebanon (H) and the street in front of the water gate (J). For the proof that the water gate stood at a re-entrant angle between the retaining walls of the armoury and the palace and faced east as shown in the plan reference must be made to an article in the Journal of Philology (vol. xvi.). The rocky boss between these two walls was in Nehemiah s time surrounded by an out work, which to the north joined the wall of Ophel, that is, of the swelling mass of hill which lies out to the north east of the palace. From the lower city (south of the Haram area) a stair near the wall led up to the plateau H (Neh. iii. 19; xii. 37). The armoury was 150 feet long and 75 broad; the plan allows the same dimensions for the open space within the water gate. The great court C, C, C is arranged in accordance with 1 Kings vii. 12, in such a way that it is at once the court of the palace and that of the temple, enclosing the inner court B. The dimensions of the inner court are not given in 1 Kings, but as the temple was twice the size of the tabernacle the court was probably also double the court of the tabernacle. This gives a length of 300 feet and a breadth of 150, as in the plan. The part of the court in front of the temple is 150 feet square, which agrees with the dimensions given in Ezek. xl. 23, 27. The great court is a square of 300 feet. This gives room on the east face for two porches D and E leading to the palace and each 75 feet long. Both porches are described in 1 Kings vii. 6, 8, and the dimensions of one are given. It is also expressly stated that the porch was before (i.e., on the east side of) the piHars that deco rated its front, and that it led into the inner court of the palace, so that the arrangement in the plan is fully justified. In the time of Jeremiah (xxxviii. 14) there were three entries from the palace to the temple; the third was prob ably into the north court, the palace having been extended northwards. It is evident that before the time of Herod the palace had disappeared. It was on a lower level than the temple, and when it was cleared away the great sub structures on the line PE stood out as the boundary of Solomon s building. North of E the substructures were less considerable, the rock at the north end of this porch being but 20 feet under the present level of the plateau. In Herod s time, as can be seen at Robinson s arch, the level of the plateau was the same as at present (2420 feet), but in older times there was a fall between the upper and lower court, and K was probably 10 feet above C, C, C. In that case D was on the natural level of the ground, while (unless the great court was on two levels) E stood on a retaining wall 10 feet high at the north end of the porch and nearly twice as lofty at the south end. The plan shows the temple thrown out on very lofty substruc tures, so as to be practically inaccessible on all sides and overhang the Tyropoeon in the most striking way. 1 The whole group of buildings formed a complete defence to the city of David on its northern or vulnerable side. It will be observed that in Herod s temple the Huldah gates at B, led directly to the altar, the position of which seems never to have been changed, and also that the plan explains the statement of Hecataeus that the temple was 150 feet broad. His length of 500 feet from east to west is 50 feet too much unless he includes some remains of the old palace. The Baris is shown as standing on the south-west corner of the existing platform of the Dome of the Rock.
A word may be said in conclusion on the ancient line of wall to the west of the temple, which, as has been shown from Neh. iii. in the article Jerusalem, ran along the eastern side of the Tyropoeon. A bridge connected the temple with the upper city in the time of the later Hasmoneans, and, as the palace (on the site of Herod's palace) 1 It ought, however, to be observed that the contour lines in and near B, B, B are almost purely conjectural. and the Baris were the points which it was most important to connect, it no doubt corresponded to the northern bridge already spoken of, at Wilson's arch M. But at that date it must have led, not directly to the temple, but to a lower point on the slope south of the Baris. In Nehemiah's time there was no bridge, but the gate of Ephraim probably corresponded to the east end of the bridge near the south-west angle of the Baris. In that case the wall, as is natural, ran close under the western substructures of the temple and probably served as a buttress to them in the part of its course south of the gate of Ephraim, which in Neh. xii. 38 is called “the broad wall.” The throne of the Persian governor, beside the gate of Ephraim (see Jerusalem, vol. xiii. p. 640), stood so close to the Baris that we may conclude that there was already a castle on its site, held for the great king. The position assigned to the gate of Ephraim, which, according to 2 Kings xiv. 13, was 600 feet from the corner gate, where the north wall of the city joined the west wall, suits the fact that a line drawn east and west 600 feet north of Wilson's arch coincides with the line of scarped rock marked on the plan. Here, therefore, the old north wall ran, with the great fosse filled up by Pompey. This wall figures also in Herod's siege, but seems to have been destroyed by him.
Literature. —The literature of the subject is immense. The results of modern surveys and diggings are given in the Palestine Exploration Fund volume on Jerusalem (London, 1884) and in the accompanying Atlas. Of other books it may suffice to name De Vogué, Le Temple de Jérusalem (fol., Paris, 1864); Fergusson, Topography of Jerusalem (8vo, London, 1847); Id., The Temples of the Jews (4to, London, 1878); Thrupp, Antient Jerusalem (8vo, Cambridge, 1855); Lewin, The Siege of Jerusalem by Titus (8vo, London, 1863); and Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l'Art (Paris, 1887).(W. R. S.)
- ↑ Templum properly denotes a spot inaugurated for the observation of auspices by the augurs. But at Rome most ædes sacræ were also templa, and so the terns came to be used as synonymous.
- ↑ They are represented in the Recovery of Jerusalem (p. 143) and in the Atlas of plates of Jerusalem published by the Palestine Exploration Fund.
- ↑ That the temple was built on the threshing-floor of Oman is naturally assumed by the Chronicler, who likes to minimize the number of old Hebrew sanctuaries; but the old history knows nothing of a consecration of the site before the ark was placed there.
- ↑ The adjoining remains of ancient buildings unquestionably mark the site of the council hall where the Sanhedrim met, and which was close to the first wall and the temple but outside the latter (B. J., v. 4, § 2; vi. 6, § 3).
- ↑ One of the suburban gates may be Warren's gate, in the substructures of the Antonia wall, about 170 feet north of Wilson's arch. The other is sometimes identified with Barclay's gate between Wilson's arch and Robinson's arch. But this would not lead into the suburb.