Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

TEMPLE

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V26, Page 609 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

TEMPLE  , a See also:

term derived from the See also:Lat. templum (Gr. riµEVOr), which originally denoted a space marked off by the See also:augurs for the purpose of observing the See also:flight of birds or other ceremonies; later it was applied to the dwelling-See also:place, the cedes sacrae, of the gods . In this latter sense it is the See also:equivalent of the native See also:Hebrew expression beth 'blohim, literally " a See also:god-See also:house," and of the See also:foreign he"kal, See also:palace, temple, a See also:loan-word from Sumerian through the See also:medium of the Babylonian e'-kallu (lit. See also:great house) . A temple or " god-house," however, represents a comparatively advanced See also:stage in the development of Semitic See also:religion . At first the Semite recognized the abodes of his deities in certain outstanding and impressive natural See also:objects, a spreading See also:tree, a bubbling See also:spring, a conspicuous See also:rock or See also:stone, a lofty See also:mountain See also:peak and the like . Beside these he met and held converse with his gods . The native rock was the first See also:altar . It was a distinct step in advance when it was recognized that a deity might take up his See also:abode elsewhere than in such natural sanctuaries, as in the massebah or stone See also:pillar and the asherah or sacred See also:post of See also:wood, reared not by nature but by the See also:hand of See also:man (cf . Gen. See also:xxviii . 18, 22, the origin of the sacred pillar at Beth-el) . The further advance to a real house or temple may be traced to the See also:influence of at least two factors in the social and religious See also:life of a See also:people . One such See also:factor came into See also:play when men began to represent the deity by means of an See also:image, or even when some See also:object, whether natural, like the See also:black stone of See also:Mecca, or manufactured, like the See also:ark of the See also:Hebrews, came to be regarded as specially sacred from its association with the deity . Such objects or images required a house to shelter and guard them .

Another factor is to be found in the advance in material comfort which follows the transition from the nomadic to the agricultural mode of life . Among the settled Semites there arose the feeling that the gods of the community ought also to See also:

share in this advance (cf . 2 Sam. vii . 2) . Accordingly they were invited to take up their abode in a beth 'elohim or temple . The dignity and comfort of the gods advance pari passu with those of their worshippers . It must be kept in mind, however, that the altar remained as before the centre of the sacrificial See also:worship . Around it or before it, under the open See also:sky, the worshippers assembled . To the temple the priests alone, or the See also:head of the sacral community in his priestly capacity, had See also:access . In this respect the worship associated with altar and temple offers a striking contrast to the more spiritual worship of the Jewish See also:synagogue and the See also:Christian See also:Church . At the date of the Hebrew invasion of See also:Canaan its numerous See also:city-states had reached a fairly high level of See also:civilization . Alongside of the typical Canaanite See also:sanctuary, as known to us from the Old Testament references and from See also:recent excavations, with its altar of See also:earth or stone and its stately massebahs, a temple was probably to be found in all the more important centres .

In an See also:

early Hebrew document there is a reference to the temple of El-berith at See also:Shechem, which was large enough and strong enough to serve as a place of See also:refuge in See also:time of See also:war (See also:Judges ix . 46 ff.) . The See also:Philistines also had their temples in this See also:period: thus we hear of a " house " of See also:Dagon at See also:Gaza (ib. xvi . 23 ff.) and also at Ashdod (I Sam. v . 2), while a temple of Ashtart (See also:Ishtar-See also:Astarte) is mentioned in r Sam. xxxi. ro, probably at Ashkelon (See also:Herod. i . 105) . The earliest reference to a temple built by Hebrew hands is to " an house of gods " reared by See also:Micah to shelter an See also:ephod and other sacred images which he had made (Judges xvii . 5) . Micah's images were soon transported to See also:Dan, where doubtless another house was built for their See also:protection (xviii . 18, 30 f.) . Somewhat later we find the ark of Yahweh installed in " the house of Yahweh " at See also:Shiloh, which house was not a See also:mere See also:tent but a real temple (heekal, r Sam. i . 9, iii .

3) with doors (iii . 15) and doorposts (i . 9), and a See also:

hall in which the worshippers partook of the sacrificial meals (i . 18, See also:Greek See also:text; cf. ix . 22 " the See also:guest-chamber," Heb. lishklh) . After the destruction of Shiloh at the hands of the Philistines, its priesthood migrated to See also:Nob, where also the incidents recorded in I Sam. xxi.—See also:note especially the presence of the shew-See also:bread and the ephod—imply the existence of a temple . The Temple of See also:Solomon.—The See also:primary source of our See also:information regarding the erection of Solomon's temple is the See also:account contained in I See also:Kings vi.-vii., the details of which must have been derived ultimately from the temple archives . On this earlier narrative the chronicler (2 Chron. iii.-iv.) and See also:Josephus (Antiq., VIII. iii . I ff.) are alike dependent . Unfortunately these two chapters of Kings are among the most difficult in the Old Testament, partly by See also:reason of our See also:ignorance of the precise meaning of several of the technical terms employed,partly owing to the unsatisfactory See also:state of the received text, which has been overlaid with later additions and glosses . As regards both text and See also:interpretation, most recent writers have adopted in the See also:main the results of See also:Stade's See also:epoch-making See also:essay in his Zeitsch. f. d. alttest . Wissenschaft, iii .

(1883), 129–177, reprinted in his Akadernische Reden, &c., with which is now to be compared Stade and Schwally's See also:

critical edition of Kings in See also:Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Test . See also, in addition to the See also:standard commentaries, See also:Burney, Notes on the Heb . Text of . . . Kings, See also:Vincent's critical and exegetical study, Rev. biblique (Oct . 1907), and the literature cited at the end of this See also:article . (a) The Site of the Temple.—On this important point our earliest authority is silent . It is now universally acknowledged, however, that the whole complex of buildings erected by Solomon stood along the See also:crest of the eastern See also:hill, crowned by the temple at the highest point, as Josephus expressly testifies (See also:Bell . See also:Jud.; V. v . 1, with which compare the See also:letter of (Pseudo) See also:Aristeas, See also:sect . 84) . This at once brings the site of the temple into proximity to the See also:world-famous sacred rock, the sakhra, over which now stands the See also:building known as the See also:Mosque of See also:Omar, and, more correctly, as the See also:Dome of the Rock .

Here another important See also:

consideration comes to our aid . From the recognized persistence of sacred sites in the See also:East through all the changes in the dominant religion, it is well-nigh certain that the sanctity of the sakhra rock goes back to the days of See also:David and Solomon, or even, it may be, to prehistoric times . On it, or over it, the See also:angel was believed to have been seen by David, and there David built his altar (2 Sam. See also:xxiv . 18-25; cf . Judges vi . 20 f., 24; xiii . 19 ff.) . This is undoubtedly the site assigned to the temple by the See also:oldest extant tradition (see I Chron. xxii . 1; cf . 2 Sam. xxiv.) . By every token, then, Solomon's altar of burnt-offering, if it was not identical with the sakhrz (see below), at least stood upon it . Since the altar necessarily stood in front, i.e. to the east, of the temple, the site of the latter was a See also:short distance to the See also:west of, and in See also:line with, the sacred rock (see See also:JERUSALEM) .

The alternative view, associated in recent times with the names of Schick and See also:

Conder, which places the most See also:holy place, or inner-most See also:shrine of the temple, over the sakhra, has now few See also:advocates (e.g . See also:Col . See also:Watson in the Quarterly Statement of the See also:Palestine Exploration Fund for 1896 and 1910) . Apart from difficulties of space towards the east, which this location involves, it cannot be accepted in See also:face of the fact that the sakhra still bears the marks of its former use as a rock-altar (see esp . Kittel, Studien zur hebr . Archaologie, 12 ff.) . Moreover the rock, measuring as it does some 55 ft. by 4o, could not have been contained within the " holy of holies,}' which was less than 30 ft. square (see below) . A third site, still within the See also:present Haram See also:area, but towards its See also:south-west See also:angle, favoured by See also:Fergusson (The Temples of the See also:Jews), See also:Robertson See also:Smith (Ency . Brit., 9th ed., See also:art . " Temple ") and others is open to even more serious objection, and has no prominent See also:advocate at the present See also:day . (b) The Temple Building.—In the See also:fourth See also:year of his reign Solomon " began to build the house of the See also:Lord " with the laying of a massive See also:foundation of " great stones," as required by the rapid fall of the ground to the west of the sakhra . Architecturally the temple consisted of three distinct parts: (I) the naos or temple proper, (2) a See also:porch or pylon in front of the naos, and (3) a See also:lower and narrower building which surrounded the naos on its other three sides (see fig .

I) . (I) The first of these, " the house of the Lord " in the strict sense, in which alone He was worshipped, was oblong in See also:

plan, and was divided into two compartments in the proportion of 2 : I by a See also:partition See also:wall . The See also:room next the porch was 40 cubits in length by 20 in breadth, with a height of 3o cubits,' ' The length of the cubit at this period cannot be determined with See also:absolute certainty . From the fact that Herod's naos was an exact replica of Zerubbabel's as regards inside measurements, coupled with the presumption that Zerubbabel built upon Solomon's See also:foundations, it is permissible to suppose that one and the same standard of length was 'used throughout . Now the present writer has shown from an inductive study of the height of the courses in the walls of the Haram and of other existing remains of the Herodian period that the cubit used by Herod's builders was exactly 17.6 in. or 447 millimetres (see Expository Times, xx . [1908–09] 24 ff.) . There is therefore See also:good reason for believing that this was also the cubit of Solomon's temple, notwithstanding the statement of 2 Chron. iii . 3 that the latter was a cubit " after a TEMPLE 605 a sive rebatements of one cubit (fig . 2) until the thickness is reduced of the beams forming the floors and ceilings of the several storeys being let into the wall of the hekal, three successive rebatements of one cubit each were made in the latter for their support (see fig . 2), consequently the width of the See also:chambers was 5, 6 and 7 cubits in the three storeys respectively (vi . 6) . The See also:total height, allowing for floors and roof, of the lateral building cannot have been less than 17 cubits .

Entrance to the See also:

side-chambers was provided by a single See also:door on the south side (see ground-plan, fig . 1) . SO far there is no difficulty as regards the See also:general plan and dimensions of the temple, provided it is kept in mind that the figures given in the text of Kings are all inside measurements . It is otherwise when one endeavours to calculate the area covered by the temple, and to determine the See also:elevation of the several parts and the general architectural See also:style of the whole . As to the area much depends upon the thickness of the walls . Here our only See also:clue is furnished by the figures for the corresponding walls of See also:Ezekiel's temple, but the necessary caution has not hitherto been observed in applying them to the proportions of the actual temple of Solomon . It cannot be too strongly emphasized that in the dimensions of his temple of the future and its courts Ezekiel is dominated by a See also:passion for symmetry and for the number 5o and its multiples,' which there is no ground for importing into the dimensions of the older temple . Nevertheless the walls of the naos may be taken at Ezekiel's figure of 6 cubits (xli . 5), with succes- to 3 cubits (4; ft.) above the side-chambers, as explained above If one cubit is allowed for the partition wall corresponding to the space in Herod's temple, where a See also:curtain took the place of the wall, we obtain a total of 73 cubits for the length of the naos and of 32 for the outside width, or 107 ft. by 47 . If 3 cubits—equal to the thickness of the wall of the naos above the side-chambert —be allowed for the See also:outer wall of the latter, the extreme width of the temple See also:works out at 48 cubits, or 701 ft . Adopting Ezekiel's thickness of 5 cubits for the front wall of the porch, we reach a total of 96 cubits or 141 ft. for the extreme length from east to west (see the accompanying ground-plan) . The proportion of length to breadth is thus 2 : I, precisely as Ezekiel's temple with its artificial See also:numbers of too and 5o respectively .

The area of the See also:

platform on which Solomon's temple stood probably measured too cubits by 60, as in the plan annexed . As regards the height of the various parts even fewer data are available . Our primary source gives the height of " the house " as 3o cubits (t Kings vi . 2) . By the great See also:majority of previous students this has been understood to mean that a single See also:flat roof, at this height from the See also:floor, covered the three parts—porch, hekal and deblr—leaving an empty space of so cubits above the last of these . But the Hebrew document, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is concerned only with inside dimensions, and in vi . 2 has probably in view the inside height of the hekal, as the largest of the three compartments . On the other hand, a characteristic feature of the contemporary See also:Egyptian temples is the, See also:gradual diminution in the height of their component parts from front to back (See also:Maspero, L'Archeologie egyptienne (1907), p . 77; See also:Erman, Handbk. of Egyptn . Religion, 41; cf. the restoration of a typical temple in See also:Perrot and Chipiez, Anct . See also:Egypt . Art. i .

373, and in Erman, Life in Anct . Egypt, 280) . In this respect the present writer believes that Solomon's temple followed the Egyptian See also:

model, the height decreasing as one proceeded from the porch to the hekal, debar and side-chambers respectively . The porch, for instance, was probably modelled on the pylons which flank the See also:principal entrance to an Egyptian temple, tall and narrow, with a sloping front wall surmounted by a See also:cornice with its characteristic See also:cavetto moulding . The 120 cubits which 2 Chron. iii . 4 gives as the height of the porch, followed by Josephus, See also:Ant . XV. xi. t and elsewhere, seem to be out of proportion to the probable height of the See also:rest of the building . But this objection does not apply to the 6o cubits given as the extreme height for the second temple in the trustworthy document, See also:Ezra vi . 3.' This, ' This has led Ezekiel certainly to increase the See also:depth of his porch from to cubits to 12 (See also:original text of Ezek. xl . 49), and probably to add a cubit to the thickness of the partition wall (xli . 3), in See also:order to bring up the total length of his temple to too cubits . 3 The numbers of this passage have been unnecessarily called in question by recent critics .

The figures given are naturally those of the two extremes, which were not to be exceeued, viz . 6o cubits for the extreme height, that of the porch, and the same figure for the extreme width, that of the raised platform . all inside measurements, and is termed in our oldest source the hekal or palace; later it was known as " the holy place." It was dimly lighted by a See also:

row of latticed windows, which must necessarily have been placed in the upper third of the side walls, as will presently be seen . Adjoining the hekal on the west See also:lay the Mir or sanctuary, later termed " the most holy place " (lit . " holy of holies ") . The inside space formed a perfect See also:cube of 20 cubits, say 30 ft., in length, breadth and height (vi . 20), symbolizing the perfection of the Deity, for whose abode this See also:part of the naos was specially designed . The debar, ss has been said, was separated from the hekal by a transverse wall, whose existence we are See also:left to infer from the obscure description of the door between the two compartments (vi . 31, see next See also:section) .1 See also:Scale of Cubits Seale of Feet 4 4 tO . '.° , . ao 10 Ego 7o fso 4° '40 , . '15 , . .s ?

Flo . 1.-Ground Plan of Solomon's Temple . (2) In front of the hekal and facing eastwards See also:

rose the porch, its inside " length " 20 cubits " according to the breadth of the house " (vi . 3), and its inside depth from east to west to cubits . The more precise See also:character and elevation of this See also:element will fall to be considered at a later stage . (3) The third architectural element was a lateral building enclosing the naos on the other three sides, and consisting of three storeys, each 5 cubits in height from floor to See also:ceiling . Each See also:storey contained a number of small storage chambers, probably See also:thirty in all (Ezek. xli . 6) . A peculiarity in the See also:architecture of this part of the temple is noteworthy . Instead the former measure." For this statement is probably a mere inference from Ezek. xl . 5, where the divine messenger uses a cubit of seven handbreadths or 203 in., the royal cubit of Egypt . For the smaller measurements the cubit of 17.6 in. may for greater convenience be reckoned at 14 ft .

t If the view presented below as to the height of the various parts of the temple is accepted, this wall becomes a structural See also:

necessity, being required to support the back wall of the hekal . FTIS;=1ZOMAM Z 4X ~L,M %///////%%%%/////~See also:DW////% %%% % i debar it may reasonably be inferred, was the height of the porch in the first temple, from which, in that See also:case, the figure was derived . The probable outside measurements for the porch are thus 32 cubits for the breadth across " the house," 15 for the depth including the front wall, and 6o cubits or 88 ft. for the height . Still following the Egyptian model, the hekal will have had its See also:separate roof of massive See also:cedar beams, covered probably by heavy See also:limestone slabs, for which 11–2 cubits may be allowed, giving a total of 32 cubits (47 ft.), equal to the outside width of this part of the temple . In the same way the roof of the debit' will have been lo cubits lower, or circa 32 ft. in all, that of the lateral building about 4 cubits lower still, say 26 ft . (cf. the section through the temple from W. to E. in fig . 2) . While the measurements above given are, as they must necessarily be, in. part conjectural, it is claimed for them that they introduce the element of proportion between the parts to an extent not attempted hitherto . (c) The Interior of the Temple and its See also:Furniture.—The entrance to the temple was through a wide and lofty opening in the front wall of the porch . See also:Crossing the See also:vestibule one entered the hekal by a large folding-door of See also:cypress wood (vi . 34)—probably ro cubits wide as in Ezekiel's temple—each of its four leaves ornamented with carved figures of See also:cherubim, palms and See also:flowers, all overlaid with See also:gold . The inner walls of the hekal and the debir were lined with boards of cedar from floor to ceiling, while the floor .was covered with planks of cypress wood.' From the hekal a door in the partition wall gave entrance to the debir .

The See also:

doorway was not rectangular but apparently pentagonal in See also:form (see the commentaries on vi . 31), the See also:lintel consisting of two blocks of stone See also:meeting at an angle, a feature "introduced to distribute the pressure of the superincumbent wall " (W . R . Smith).2 The walls of the debir were overlaid with " pure gold " according to our present text (vi . 2o); this enhancement of the dignity of the See also:adytum as the earthly dwelling-place of the heavenly See also:King is not so incredible as the profuse application of gold decoration to other and inferior parts of the house, even, as we have seen, to its floor (on this question see the critical works cited above) . As regards the furniture of the house, it is probable that the original text of r Kings introduced only the altar of cedar now found in the corrupt text of vi . 20, and to be identified with the table of shewbread, as the See also:sole furniture of the holy place . The ten See also:golden candlesticks, ,properly lampstands, of vii . 49 are generally believed to have been introduced at a later, date (cf . Jer . 18 f.) . In the most holy place stood the See also:palladium of See also:Israel's religion, the sacred ark of Yahweh .

On either, side of this See also:

venerable relic of the past were two cherubim, sculptured from See also:olive wood and overlaid with gold, each ro cubits high, their outstretched wings reaching right across the debir, and forming a baldachin over the ark (vi . 23-28) . Although forming no part of the interior furniture of the temple, the remarkable twin pillars which stood on either side of the entrance to the porch may be mentioned here, since they belonged rather to the temple than to its See also:court . These pillars, which in the received text See also:bear the enigmatical names of " Jachin and Boaz," 3 were hollow columns-the See also:bronze See also:metal being about 3 in. in thickness—over 26 ft. in height and 6 ft. in See also:diameter, surmounted by elaborate capitals about 71 ft. high . The latter were globular in form, ornamented. by a specially See also:cast network of bronze, over which were hung See also:festoon-See also:wise two wreaths of bronze pomegranates, each row containing a See also:hundred pomegranates . As the pillars doubtless stood on plinths, the total height of each will have been at least 35 ft . Such See also:free-See also:standing pillars were a feature of temple architecture in See also:Phoenicia and elsewhere in western See also:Asia, as later reproductions on See also:local coins attest, and would appear to Solomon's ' The overlaying of the floor with gold (1 Kings vi . 30) is a later See also:interpolation; the same is probably true of the gildiitg of the sculptures on the walls, which may have been added at a later date (cf . Ezek. xli . 18) . 2 This partition wall, it will be remembered, had to support the back wall of the hekal according to the view of the temple architecture advocated above . 3 The various forms which the latter name assumes, in the Greek text, suggest that Boaz is an intentional disguise of an original See also:Baal, applied of course to Yahweh (See also:Barnes, Jour. of Theol .

Studies, v . 447 ff.) . Phoenician architects as a natural See also:

adjunct of his temple Jachin and Boaz, therefore, may be regarded as conventional symbols of the Deity for whose worship the temple was de-signed.' (d) Tke Temple Court, Altar and other Apparatus of the Cult.—The temple stood within the western See also:half of " the court of the house of the Lord," also known as " the inner court " to distinguish it from " the other court " See also:round the adjoining palace and from " the great court " which surrounded the whole complex of Solomon's buildings . All three had walls in which three courses of hewn stone alternated with a course of cedar beams (see next section) . To the " court of the house " laymen as well as priests had access (Jer, See also:xxxv. i ff., See also:xxxvi. ro) . Several See also:gates gave entrance to it, but their precise position is uncertain . The principal entrance from "the great court" was doubtless in the east wall . Another was in the south wall and communicated with " the other court " and the royal palace . There were also one or more gates on the See also:north side of the court . In our present text of 1 Kings vi.-vii., there is no mention of so indispensable a part of the apparatus of the cult as the altar of burnt-offering . This silence has been explained in two ways . The majority of critics believe that the original account did contain a reference to the making of a bronze altar(cf .

Phoenix-squares

2 Chron. iv . I), but that it was excised by a later editor, who assumed that the bronze altar of the See also:

tabernacle accompanied the ark to the new sanctuary . Others, with greater See also:probability, maintain that the silence of our oldest source is due to the fact that Solomon followed the See also:primitive Semitic See also:custom and used the See also:bare sakhra rock as his great altar . In this case the altar, which was removed by order of See also:Ahaz to make way for his new altar after a,See also:Damascus model (2 Kings xvi. io-16), must have been introduced by one of Solomon's successors.' In the court, to the south of the line between the altar and the temple, stood one of the most striking of the creations of Solomon's Phoenician artist, Huram-abi of See also:Tyre . This was the " brazen See also:sea," a large circular tank of bronze with the enormous capacity of over 16,000 gallons (1 Kings vii . 23-26), resting on the backs of twelve bronze bulls, which, in See also:groups of three,. faced the four See also:cardinal points . It is doubtful if this See also:strange " sea " served any See also:practical purpose (see a Chron. iv, 6) . Most recent writers agree in assigning to it a purely symbolical significance, like the twin pillars above described . Babylonian temples are now known to have had a similar apparatus, termed+See also:apse, which symbolized either the primeval See also:abyss, personified as the See also:monster Tiamat subdued by See also:Marduk, whose See also:symbol was the See also:bull, or, according to a later theory, the upper or heavenly sea, bounded by the See also:Zodiac with its twelve signs . Associated with the " brazen sea " were ten lavers of bronze, also the See also:work of Huram-abi (vii . 27–39) . Each laver consisted of a circular See also:basin holding over 300 gallons, and See also:borne upon a wheeled See also:carrier or " See also:base."' The sides of the See also:carriers were open frames composed of uprights of bronze joined together by transverse bars or rails of the same material, the whole richly ornamented with See also:palm trees, lions, oxen and cherubim in See also:relief .

Underneath each stand were four wheels of bronze, while on the See also:

top was fitted a See also:ring or See also:cylinder on which the basin rested . According to Kittel, " it is highly improbable that these lavers served any practical purpose . They were rather like the great ` sea,' the embodiment of a religious See also:idea; they were symbols of the See also:rain-giving Deity " (op. cit.. p . 242) . The Relation of the Temple to Contemporary Art.—Of the many problems raised by the description of the temple in r Kings none is of greater See also:interest than the question of its relation to ' Robertson Smith's theory that they were huge cressets in which " the See also:suet of the sacrifices" was burned (Rel . Sem., 2nd ed., 488) has found no support . For recent attempts to explain the symbolism of the pillars in terms of the " early See also:oriental Weltanschauung," see A. jemmies, See also: