TEBAH
Thus in I Cor. 1228, Paul declares tha.t 'God hath set in th; as well as of I K. 7 4 5 3 (with 11 in Ch.).
Church first apostles secondly prophets, thirdly teachers. . .
In his enumeration bf gifts in Rom. 126-8 we have the order
' prophecy ' 'ministry' (6iaroviav), 'he that teacheth,' '$e, that
exhorteth,' and so fyt;. And in Eph. 411, 'apostles, pro-
pheth ' evangelists pastors (woLp6vayaF) and teachers' are
am,& the gifts of t h r i s t to his Church. In Acts 13 I we read
of 'prophets and teachers' as belonging to the church in
Antioch.
These notices taken together suggest a class of men
endowed with a spiritual gift for the instruction of the
Church, and taking rank next after the apostles and
the prophets. Their function probably consisted in a
Christian exposition of the OT scriptures and a n
application of the Gospel to the needs of common life,
and stood in contrast with the enthusiastic utterances of
the prophets. The vagueness of the term 'teachers
might suggest that it included any who gave instruction,
and that the word denoted a function rather than a
permanent office. It is quite likely that this was so a t
first. T h e use of the word as a title, however, is
assured by the evidence of the Didach!, where, although
teachers are far less prominent than prophets, they are
joined with them as a cognate class, and honour is
claimed for ' the bishops and deacons ' on the ground
that 'they too minister the ministry of the prophets
and teachers.'
In the African church the title remains to the beginning of
the third century, and is found in conjunction with that of
'presbyter.' Thus w e have in the Passion of Sf. PerpPtua
(ch. 13) a mention of 'Aspasius the presbyter-doctor' (c Cypr.
c j . 29). About the same tune Origen as a layman at t f e head
of the Christian school in Alexandria affords the most illustrious
example of the exercise of the gift of teaching apart from the
regular orders of the ministry.
Of theFe three grades of what was pre-eminently ' the
ministry of the word,' in contradistinction to official
administration, each in its turn ceased to exist as a
separate order. The apostles are the first to disappear.
The Twelve and Paul passed away by death, and
in the next generation the title was already becoming
sacred to t h e m ; the apostles of the DiduchC are a
survival, destined immediately to disappear. The
prophets on the contrary are still in full power, a t any
rate in certain localities. Yet even they show pre-
monitory symptoms of decay; and the failure of the
Montanistic movement to re-establish them as a
permanent order in the Church led to the final dis-
appearance of prophecy as a n institution. The teachers
fulfilled a ministry which would naturally grow in im-
portance as the authoritative voices of apostles and
prophets were ceasing to be heard, and as the inroad
of heresy increased the demand for the grace of true
teaching. That they too ceased to be a distinct class
in the Church was due to the fact that their duties were
taken over more and more by the administrative order,
which gathered round its chief representatives many of
the functions and much of the prestige of apostles,
prophets and teachers alike. C p MINISTRY, 5 39.
J. A. R.
TEBAH (WQ; TABEK [AD], -x [LI), a son of
N AHOR by Reurnah (a corruption of Jerahmeel). Gen.
2224. The names in the Nahorite genealogy (uu.20-24)
make a southern ( ; . e . . N. Arabian) connection very
plausible. Against this we must not quote 'Aram,'
for ' Aram ' (i.e . , Jerahmeel) is p i m a r i b a N. Arabian
name. T h e brethren of ' Tebah ' are G G a m (rather,
Naham. 1 and 2 being confounded), Tahash ( L e . ,
Hushah=Cushah?), and Maacah. Nor can we safely
urge that BETAHin 2 S. 8 8 (which, if @ may be trusted,
is miswritten for Tebd?) or Tibhath in I Ch. 188 (for
which Pesh. has ~ J U )was a city of Hadad-ezer, king
of Zobah ; for it is maintained elsewhere (Z OBAH )
that the wars of David referred to were in the S . ,
not in the N., and that for ' Hadad- ezer, ben
Rehob, king of Zobah,' the original narrative had
'Hadad, ben Rehobroth], king of Misyr.' We can
now for the first time, as it seems, give an altogether
satisfactory explanation of 2 S . 8 8 and the I/ I Ch. 188,
157 4917
TEHINNAE
Betah
turns out to be nearer the truth than Tebah. The
Sam. passage should run thus, ' A n d from Rehoboth,
the city of Hadad, king David took brass in great
abundance,' while in the latter the name of the city
should be ' Rehoboth-jerahmeel.' It would seem that
there was more than one Jerahmeelite city called
' Jerahmeel,' at least if we are right in supposing that
the city, whose capture by David is described in 2 S .
1 2 2 6 8 , was not ' Rabbath' hut 'Rehoboth (of the
Jerahmeelites). '
Had the redactor who is responsible for the present
form of the narrative in z S.8 3 8 a conception such as
is geographically possible of the geography of David's
'Aramzean' campaign? I n order to answer in the
affirmative we should have to emend ' from Betah and
from Berothai' (aiqni m z p ) into 'from Tebah and
f r o m Ta66ur' ( m y n ? g ~ ) . Tebah might be the
Tubihi of the $Am. Tablets (127, 5 , 14, etc.), the
Dibhu of the Li$t of Thotnies 111. (Z?P(~), 5 4 3 ; Sayce,
Acad., Feb. 21,' i d g j ; W M M As. u. Eur: 173396).
In the 'Travels pf',:an Egyptian' 109 111 ;
Brugsch, Gesch. Eg. 340) Kadesh on the Orontes,
Tubihi, Tihis (see T HAHASH), and Dapuru appear as
neighbouring places.
We now turn to I K. 745647, the difficulties of which neither
Renzinger nor Kittel appear to have altogether removed ; the
help which the former scholar derives from BL $ illusory. It
should be noticed that the current rendering, of burnished
brass,' for amn nwn], puts an undue strain on the root-meaning
of p)m. We cannot pause to investigate Is. 18 z 7 Ezek. 21 x4-16
[9-11]hut may suggest that even the RV must not be followed
blindiy. The key to I K. Z.C. (and the \I 2 Ch.416J) is
furnished by I Ch. 1886, which shows that the original narrative
of Hiram the artificer stated that the brass came from a city of
Hadad, king of Misur. In short, the P)mnof K. and the p i x
of Ch. come respectively from ng!n and nixmg, and the
second of these readings is the better. yjj> and i i i ? nwhich
follow are corrupt forms of a dittographed iNnni3 (see J O R U A N ,
D 2 [ZI).
The result is that I K. 746 2 Ch. 4 17 should run thus,
8 Of brass from Rehoboth-jeremeel did Jerahmeel
[Le.. * H i r a m ' ; see HAMMELECH] cast them, in
Maacath-aram, between Maacath and Zarephath ' (cp
SCCCOTH, Z ARETHAN). An imaginary place ' Tebah '
has in fact usurped a part of the honour which rightly
belongs to REHOBOTH[g.v.]. C p the commentaries.
T. K. C.
TEBALIAH (9&, perhaps for Tobliyyahu,
' YahwB is gracious to me,' 38 ; TABAAI [B], TABEA~AC
[A], TABEHA [L]), a Merarite doorkeeper ( I Ch. 26 11).
But (in spite of 6 )the name should possibly be read
w $ a (perhaps from wm misread i i l h ~ ;) cp
TOBIJAH, I, also TABEEL.* S. A. C.
TEBETH (IlJQ), Esth. 2 16. See MONTH, § 2.
TEHAPHNEHES (Dn?qnn), Ezek. 30 18. See
TAHPANHES.
TERINNAH (Yl!n3, as if 'supplication,' 74 ; c p
O S 1 6 6 6 BAN& x ~ p i c ) ,father of I R - NAHASH , I Ch.
4 d (8AlMAN [BI,B A N & [Alp e€€NNA !&I).
If RECAH (p.w.) is rightly corrected to Recab, Tehinnah
should almost certainly be n p , KIN AH^ (Josh. 1 5 ~ 2 )ie.,
~
a settlement of the Kenites. See IR-NAHASH.
3 *nix are both fragmentary representa-
1 In 2 S. Z.C. n ~ and
tions of ni>ni(Rehohoth), and in I Ch. 2.c. p i nnxu represents
$Nani* nl>m(Rehoboth-jerahmeel). For the latter emendation,
cp probably miswritten in Judg. IO5 for hinnq?. Note,
however, that @BNAL's &AW&V implies niin3, which is virtually
nilni, a correction of nyu; pi is not represented. Cp
MEROM.
2 According to Cheyne, the name is probably either from
h r n , 'a man of T UBAL ' (q.v.), or, if 17' is correct, from h n
. T
$Nnni?, Tubal-jerah[meel] (cp ~ * i )Sxln, ' Tnhal-kain '). Cp
ZEDEKIAH, li I .
3 When J had become n, it was natural for a pious scribe to
prefix n, and so get the meaning 'supplication.'
4978
 TEIL TREE
Pesh. has, ‘he begat Ja‘azer,’ for which reading there is no
obvious reason. T.K. C.
5..
TEILTREE ( il K ) , Is.613 AV, RV TEREBINTH
(4.n.).
TEKOA or TEKOAEI (fip3, n@’,p?,’ hardly=
’ settlement,’ from 2/yj)n, to strike [tent-pegs intq the
ground] ; f j e ~ w a z), gentilic Tekoite ([PI’Ylp~, at any time) of a cyclone from the Persian Gulf. There
&KW(E)[THC3), ‘woman of Tekoa’ (iVYliX7, ~ B K U -
BITIC [BA] -KOYI. [L]), a city S. of Bethlehem, on the
bprders of the wilderness to which it gave name (12’fD
UlPn, 2 Ch.2020, THN E P H M O N e., I Macc.933).
Assuming that the same place is always meant, we find
it mentioned as the residence of a ‘ wise woman ’ who
interceded for Absalom ; as one of the towns fortified
by Rehoboam; and as the birthplace of the prophet
Amos ( z S. 142 I Ch.224 z Ch. 2020 Jer.61 Am. 11).
It is also mentioned in Josh. 1559 @BAL (Oexw) where it
heads the list of eleven towns wanting in M T (Tekoa,
Ephrathah which is Bethlehem, Peor [see under ETAM, and there for seven days I dwelt among them astonished.
I], Etam, Kulon [ q . ~ . ] ,Tatam, Sores [see SEIR,21,
Karem [ q . ~ . ] Galem
, [q.~.],Bether [ q . ~ . and
] Manocho
[see M ANAHATH . 31). It comes also into an obscure
genealogy in I Ch. 45-8 where Tekoa (cp I Ch. 224)
figures as son of ASSHURand (if for CoZ we ought to
read Tekoa) as father of Anub and 2obehah.and the
families of Aharhe14 (d&b#~ot P~XU,!?)son of Harum
(i.e., Jearim ; see eBA). Still assuming that there is
only one Tekoa, we may identify it with the modern
Teku‘a, which lies six miles S . of Bethlehem, on an
elevated hill, not steep, but broad a t the top, and
covered with ruins to the extent of four or five acres.
These consist chiefly of the foundations of houses built
of squared stones, some of which are bevelled. The
middle of the space is occupied by the ruins of a Greek
church. The site commands extensive prospects (cp
AMOS, § 3), and towards the E. is bounded only by
the level mountains of Moab. Before and during the
Crusades Tekoa was well inhabited by Christians ; but
in 1138 A.D. it was sacked by a party of Turks from
beyond the Jordan, and nothing further is known of it
till the seventeenth century, when it lay desolate, as it
has ever since done.
It is however by no means certain that all the references to
‘Tekoa’ mean the same place. In Jer. 6 I for instance a more
southerly place is meant (see TEL-HARS~A). It is cdntended
elsewhere(see PROPHET, 58 26, 40 ; Z APHON) that it is a Jerah-
meelite invasion that is most probably apprehended ; the places
mentioned should be sought in the Negeb. Amos too was hardly
a native of the Tekoa, S. of Bethlehem (see PKOPHET, 0s IO, 35).
And in I Ch. 4 4 J , just as ‘Beth-lehem’ is not the place 1:
Judab so called but Beth-’erahmeel iu the Negeb, so Tekoa
is more southerly than the test ’known place of that name.
T. K. C.
TEL-ABIB (1’3K 5n5 ; M E T ~ W P O C , see below ;
[ad] acemum novarumf r u p m ) , the seat of a colony of
Jewish exiles ( E z e k . 3 q t ) . To a Hebrew ear the
name meant Mound (hill) of ears of corn’ (cp A BIB).
As, however, Friedrich Delitzsch has pointed out,6 if it
1 The ending is hardly locative : nyipn in 2 S. 142 is probably
a corruption of ??!Jp n*p ‘ Beth-maacah’ (= Beth-jerahmeel,
see S AUL $4) a ‘wise woman ’ of which place is mentioned in
connectidn wi;h Joab in 2 S. 20 1 5 3 Very possibly too, we may
explain y i p itself as a primitive popular corruption of n?>
3Jp
The variants are : 2 S. 14 2 Bcrcouc [L], I Ch. 2 24 Barwr [AI,
4 5 B P K W ~ [A],
’ Jer. 6 f Am. 1 I BeKOus.
3 The variants are : a S. 23 26 BE& [L], I Ch. 1128 irBsro [BN],
Bcroc [AI, 279, Betcoverwp [Bl, Neh 3527 Berwrrw [HAL],
-w [B and H in ZI271, . Brrotral [L v. 271.
4 Surely sninx is one of the numerous distortions of $ N D ~ * .
Griineisen’s pointing h?l7! (Ahnenculfus, 257), leads to no
satisfactory explanation.. Cp @L, 6 s rpi) apanqh A.6+$oir pqxafl.
6 ‘ Tel ’ (Ass. tiZ[fIn), ir ancient, as In modern times formed
the first part of the name of many Babylonian places sitdted near
a mound of ruins of a previous settlement (cp $5, Dt.13 17 [16]
Josh. 8 28). Cp TEL-HARSHA, TEL-MELAH, and TELASSAR 3 In Am. 6 14 nnn is probabl a corruption of Maacath (a
(Tel-Asshur).
6 CuZwrr Bi6.-LexikonF),go1 a
4919
TELASSAR
a Babylonian place-name, the right form ought to be
IS
Tel-abub (TiCeb,ubi). Ahiibu ( #flood-storm’ or ‘storm-
flood’?) is the proper Assyrian word Tor the Deluge
[see D ELUGE, 13, n. I) ; Til-abubi, as a Babylonian
name, might mean either a mound of ruins so ancient
(cp &ip n i I i n ) that it was called a Deluge-mound, or
m e that had been produced hy the rushing in (possible
is a common phrase in the Assyrian inscriptions, ‘ I
made (or, destroyed) the city like a tiZ-adubi.’
If, however, the view advocated in P ROPHET, § 27, is correct
and Ezekiel together with Jehoiachin and his fellow-exile:
resided in N. Arabia, we must look out for another explanation.
And it so happens that this view (the ‘Jerahmeelite theory’)
supplies the only key to the manifold corruptions of the single
passage in which Tel-abib occurs (see Crii. Bih.). The text of
Ezek. 3 14J which results from the application of this key runs
thus :
(14) ‘And (the) spirit lifted me up and took me to Maacath of
Jerahmeel, and the hand of Yahwk upon me was strong. (15)
And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-arab [Ishmael, by
the river of Jeremeel], and to Tel-asshur [Jerahmeel, Is\mae!],
The text which underlies 6 is only slightly different; pcrdwopop
=D!=hDnY ; r a l 1 r e p ~ j h B o v = ~ 1 D N 1 = l i W H ~ Probably
~~~i. we
may restore it thus in v. 15 :
‘And I came to the company of exiles, to Tel-jerahrneel and
Tel-asshur [Ishmael, by the river of Jerahmeel, Ishmael].
Thus, combining MT and 6, we are led to suspect that
Tel-arab and Tel-jerahmeel were two names for the same place.
We know of a ‘valley( x q ) of Jerahmeel’ (see SALT, VALLEV
OF ) and also, probably, of a ‘ wsdy’ (in,) of ‘Arab.’3 We also
find a Tel-melah or Tel-jerahmeel in Ezra-Neh. (see TEL-
MELAH) and as a probable eqiivalent of Tel-asshur Tel-harsha
or Tel-khhdr (see TEL-HA-HA). Very possibly,’ however, a
further result awaits US. $n, wherever it occurs in compound
names, is simply a short way of writing 5Iin, T UBAL (q.v.). See
C r i f . Bi6. T. K. C.
TELAH (nk$ Bahsec P I p Baht! [AI, Baha CLI),
mentioned in the list of the b’ne Ephraim (I Ch. 725).
There are, however, several corrupt repetitions in this section
( I Ch. 7 zofi), and it is probable that n5n is a corruption of
n$niV; cp Wellhausen, PYoZ.P) 214. See EPHRAIM, # 12,
S HUTHELAH.
TELAIH (n’&p), I S. 15 4. and Telam (Heb.
&2), I S. 278 RVmg.. See TELEM.
TELASSAR (>&[K1$7l; BafcBaN [Bl, B a h a c c a p
[AL] in Ki., i v xhpq, Bscpa [N* (sup ras e zD fort o)], -e [E],
Bepau [HC], Baipa8 LA], Oac [palo [Ovid], Barpav [QJ ; fhZrcsar).
Telassar is named in z K. 1 9 12 (Is. 37 12) as the loca-
tion of the ‘children of Eden.’ The places Gozan,
Haran, and Rezeph named before Telassar follow a n
order from E. to W. This suggests that ’ the children
of Eden ’ once dwelt nearer to Palestine (Jiidah?) than
Rezeph, which was W. of the Euphrates. T h e conquest
of these cities is ascribed to the kings, my fathers,’
who had preceded Sennacherib.
T h e identification of ‘ the children of Eden’ with the
Bit Adini of the Assyrian Inscriptions already made
by Schrader (KATP),327) has more or less difficulty
(cp BETH-EDEN) according to the situation in which
this widely scattered Aramaic folk are supposed to be
located. T h e Blt Adini of the earlier times formed a
powerful race inhabiting the district S . of Edessa.
over Haran between the Balikh (on the E. of which lay
Gozan) and the Euphrates. But it also included a wide
strip on the W. bank of the Euphrates, in which lay
many large cities. This country made strong resist-
ance to Asur-ngsir-pal ( K B 1 6 4 , 102, 104, I I ~ ) ,but
was finally conquered by Shalmaneser 11. (858 B .c.).
Shalmaneser changed many of the city names, among
others giving to Nappigi (Mabbaig, Bambyke) the name
of Lita-ASur ( K B 1 1 3 2 156 162). There was also
1 Del. Ass. HWB, s.2’. ‘abnhu’; Schr. KATP)234(zg), 262(1).
2 It will be understood that the words in 11are presumed to he
glosses. Arabia, Ishmael, Jerahmeel, and Asshur were in fact,
as in the present writer’s view the phenomena of the Psalms
adundantly show, practically s;nonymous to the later writers.
Jerahmeelite name) and 3?!p: &I of 37Y ’I =+ D’?lY ’> (so
read) in Is.15 7. See Cn?.Ei6.
4920
 TELEM TEL-MELAH
a branch of the Aramaic Bit Dakkari who lay E. of the 1 emended accordingly.' This, however, implies inade-
Tigris in Babylonia. A third settlement of the Bit quate criticism of the proper name n57in (Havilah), and
Adini is associated by Tiglath-pileser 111. with Ifaur5n, the same objection may he made to Winckler, when he
'Xzaz, and =\ribua, in Syria, which may possibly be the emends n5,rnn in 15 7 into oiryn, in accordance with
'house of Eden' referred to in Amos 1 5 (Winckler,
AOF 1104). Whether the children of Eden had their
278.2 ,
-4 place called 'OIPni is highly problematical, and a better
home in Telassar and were now deported elsewhere, or way out of the critical difficulty ought to he found. As is
~

whether they had been deported to 'I'elassar will depend ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~nhb ~ I s. ~23
r like ~ni'2n in ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
on the identifications adopted. i
11; I S:27s yfAap in ycAap+(m)oup of E A has been thought to
It is tempting to recognise in Telassar the TII-ASSuri ' represent Telam, which indeed a number of cursives attest. But
of Tiglath-pileser 111. (Tiele, B A G 231) ; and Of ESar- T may he a corruption of r. Klostermann ingeniously extracts
haddon ( K B 2 128 144). But these passages show that lbsn h,'the wadyofBasoa'(q.v.). Cp Ex$T 10239 [18gg].
~

there were two different places of that name. The ! T. IC. C.

first was certainly in Babylonia ; but there is no indica- TELEM (&I?
; T E ~ H M [B], T e ~ ~ H[KAL]),M a
tion that the Bit Adini were settled there. The second door.keeper,
~ 10 24. I Esd. 9 25 T~~~~~~~ (ro~pauqF
was inhabited bv an Aramaic DeoDle. the Bit Parnaki. 1 IBA1). See TELEII. I : and CD T A L n i o N .

the Bit Parna'ki were a branch of th"e Bi; kdini, there is u a ; Neh. a p v u a [BNI, O a A a p u a [AI, OaAAapqs [Ll ;
O ~ A a a p ~ u [L]
I Esd., TIIELERSAS [EVJ, Behepuac [B], B~Aum.5[A], BaAaa [ x a r
nothing to connect this Til-ASSuri with ' t h e children of p v u a l &I).
Eden. * A place from which, according to the great post-
On the one hand, TLI ASSnri may have been one of exilic list, came certain families of doubtful origin
the names conferred by Shalmaneser on one of the (Ezra259 = Neh. 761 = I Esd. 536t). The name in
conquered cities of Bit Adini, or Tel-Assar may be a cor- Hebrew might mean ' mound of the forest ' ; but &YSU
riiption of Lita-ASur, or of Til-baSer& a city in Shal- (or & U Y S U ) in Assyrian means ' mountain - range,'
maneser's Bit Adini ; or, on the other hand, the name whence Friedrich Delitzsch4 proposes to explain as if
Telassar may be derived from a totally different name, til .&Si, ' hill in the mountains.'
not yet recognised. If, however we adopt the theory (cp PROPHET, $3 27) that the
[The closing sentence of the preceding article opens the door Israelites wdo returned from exile came chiefly from the
for a renewed examination of the question from the point of Jerahnieelite region in N. Arabia (including the Negeb) we
view of SENNACHERIB, I 5. ' Rezeph' and 'the b'ne Eden in shall have to seek for some other explanation. In this cahe,
Telassar' are easily explicable if it is a king of the N. Arabian woln will almost certainly be miswritten forlnus)rc--i.e., Ashhur.
+hhur whose victories are referred to in 2 Ki. 1912 (Is. 37 12). !n I Ch. 2 24 Ashhur is called the father of Tekoa, where
Eden ' was a district of the Jerahmeelite Negeb (see PARADISE, Tekoa ' is probably not the modern Tekii'a, a hrs. S.of Ben;
0 7), and Tel-ashhur is a very probable name, if we should not jamin, but some place farther south ; cp Jer. 6 I where ' Tekoa
rather read Tubal-ashhur. See TELHARSHA.-T. K. c.1 is mentioned with ' Beth-haccerem,' or rather ' Beth-jerahmeel,'
C. H. W. J. and both places are near the land of Zaphon (p),
which
TELEM
tween ZIPH
@$e),
and B
a city in the Negeb, mentioned be-
EALOTH(Josh. 15 TEAEM [AL],
z4 ;
apparently included Kadesh and the sacred mountain of Yahw&
(see ZAPHON). On the possible identity of Tel-ashhur with the
so called Telassar, see TEL-MELAH. T. K. C.
MAINAM [B?]). This may be the T ELAIM (cm$?), or
perhaps rather ON>'^
(Telam), where Saul mustered his
TEL-MELAH (n$O $f ; eEPMEhB8 P I , 8eA-
M E A ~ X [L], MEXEA, [A]), a place from which, according
warriors before fightingwiththeAmalekites. IS. 1 5 4 ( M T to the great post-exilic list, came certain families which
assumes the article, 'y ; cp Vg. p a s i ugnos). Appar-
could not prove their Israelitish origin, Ezra 25g=Neh.
ently there was an ancient clan called Telem, with 761 (BBPMEhE8 [KIP&AM. P I , 8shMMshaX [ALI)=1
which name the rea1 or assumed personal names Esd. 536 (THERMELETH [EV] ; eepMsA68 [AI, &A-
T ELEM ( ~.b.g ) , TALMON (pnh), and even TALMAI Meher [L]). The name is generally supposed to be
(&) should undoubtedly be irouped, and the import- Babylonian, and since, in this case, the explanation ' hill
ance of which may be estimated from the fact that of salt ' is impossible, Friedrich Delitzsch (CaZwev Bib. -
' Talmai ' stands beside ' Sheshai ' and ' Ahiman ' Lex.(*) 901) would give the name as TiZ--ma&&i,
(corruptions probably of ' Cushi ' and ' Jerahmeel ') as ' sailors' hill,' on the analogy of T EL - ARIB (q.n.).
representing the primitive population of Kirjath-arba If, however, we follow the analogy of the names or
(mther K. -%ab), otherwise called Hebron (rather n$3? ">,and nip. l'p (see SALT, VALLEY OF, and S ALT ,
Rehoboth). Observe too that ' Talmon ' occurs in C ITY OF) Tel-melah will mean ' hill of Jerahmeel,' and will
become pHrt of the ividence for the theory (cp PROPHET P 27)
I Ch. 9 17 beside Ahiman ' (Jerahmeel) as the name of
a family of SZlirim ( E V ' porters '), or rather 'uS%im '
that the israelitish exiles who returned came mainl; from
the region called Jerahmeelite in N. Arabia (including the
(Asshurites), and that n h y l (Bealoth), beside which o h Negeb). The names with which Tel-melah is grouped are Tel-
(Telem) occurs in Josh. 1524, is probably miswritten for harsha and Cherub-addan-immer or ' Cheiub, Addan (Ezra) or
the ancient clan-name 'Tubal (see TLJRaL-CAIN). Addon (Neh.), and Immer ' (l@Ni, Neh.). Two of these-viz,
The place called Telani must have been situated not Cheruhand Immer-at once become intelligible ifwemayventure
to set aside the prejudice of a Babylonian c o n n e k o n ; both are of
very far from the $nj or wady which separated the the same type as numerous corruptions o f ' Jerahmeel. Addan
Judahite from the Amalekite territory. For the first or Addon, too, is very possibly N. Arabian, and in spite of the
niovemrnt of Saul was towards the cities (n.5 : initial N in Ezra-Neh., may be another form of iiy-ie., the N.
Pws 7 i j v x6Xewv) of Amalek on the other side (read Arabian ' Eden,' which is very possibly referred to ( I ) in the
story of Paradise (see P ARADISE , 7), and (2) in the otherwise
ilyi) of the wady ( v . 5 ) . Possibly there was near it a enigmatical phrases ' Beth-eden ' (Amos 1 5) aiid 'the h'ne Eden
place called Gilgal ( a popular corruption of Jerahmeel),for who were in Telassar' (2 K. 19 IZ=IS. 37 12). Probably w'
g H A L in I S. 154 gives 'in Gilgal' (8v I'aXyBXors) instead should read, for ' Cherub-addan-immer,' ' Eden of Jerahmeel
of ' in Telam.' W e can hardly venture to go further, (Ssnnl, i y y ) 'cherub' and 'immer' being variants for the
fuller and trnkr furm Jerahmeel. TEL-HAHSHA (4.v.) probably
and suppose that Telam was regarded as itself the
boundary between Judahite and Amalekite land. This 1 H. P. Smith accepts C2.g in 27 8, hut not in 15 7 ; Driver
supposition has indeed actually been made, 'and the
holds himself in suspense. We., Bu., and Ki. read o\*oo, cr
test of I S. 157 ( M T n h a ) and 278 ( M T ohyn) been &an, in both places. Lohr resists the temptation to change ;
Klost. retains MT in 157,but strikes out a new path in 278.
1 See Ancer. Jozrr. of TheoZ., July rgor, p. 439. Musri 2 (MVG, 1898, 4), 6.
2 I t is also possible however, that rahaAors IS a very early 3 Gl&er'needlessly emends n$>n in I S. into n$>n.
alteration of T e p p , thd better known place being substituted for 4 He6. Lung. 1 6 3 : C u l v e r Bib.-Lex.P) gor (' Waldhiigel'
the more obscure. can hardly be right ; cp Ass. W W B 293 6).
4921 4922
 TEMA
=Tel-ashhur, and notice aga,in the significant phrase ‘the h’nE
Eden who were in Telassar, where Telassar the meaning of
wbicb is otherwise scarcely a soluble probleh, is probably a
corruption of Tel- or Tubal-ashbur. See TELASSAR (end).
T. K . C.
TEMA (Kg’n, and once K@ [Job 6191 ; 8 A l M A N
[BKAQI’L]), son of Ishmael (Gen. 2515 8 ~ [DE] . ; I
Ch. 130). The name appears as early as Jeremiah ( 2 5 23 ;
Be. [Wa] 6wpear [KX]), also in a prophetic fragment on
Arabia( ‘landofTema,’Is. 21 14). In boththese passages
it is associated with D EDAN (4.v.).’ In Job 619 the
‘ caravans of Tema ’ ( 6 a ~ p a v w r are) parallel to the
’ companies of Sheba.’ For its geographical position would have been an insufficient description : ‘ Temanite ’
see I SHMAEL, 4 [6]. In the cuneiform inscriptions of
Tiglath-pileser 111. its people are spoken of as ( a h ) wisdom. As to the locality intended by a Teman,’ Ezek.
Te-mai-ie., belonging to the city TEma’u (cp
Schrader, K G F 2 6 1 8 ; Del. Par. 3018). Its modern
name is Tuirnd. T h e explorations of Euting have
brought to light some important Aramaic inscriptions,
dating from before the Persian period, which testify to
the existence of a highly developed culture among the
ancient Arabs of Tema (see A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE , 5 2).
Special mention is made in one of them of the N p n ?&, ‘ the may perhaps venture to regard the district of Teman as
gods of Tema, one of the most important of whom bore the
name ~ $ (CIS,
3 2 113 114), cp >io nsr the name of one of his
priests (‘ O h saves,’ a name perhaps I1 to the biblical h!’@)
see Baeth. Beifr. BOA,and cp ZALMUNNA.
TEMAH (nvq),the family name of a company of
(post-exilic) Nethinim : Ezra 2 53 (8Fpa[a] [BAL], AV T HAMAH)
=Neh. 7 55 (qpae [BK], Bqpa [AI, Bepaa [Ll, AV TAMAH)= I Esd.
632 T HOMOI , RV T HOMEI (ooperL [BI, eopcL [AI, [LI).
TEMAN ($+n,J In’, ‘ what is on the right hand’?
-id., ‘south’; Barpav [BADQL] occasionally Ofp. in KADEQ :
Vg. Thenran, except Ezek. 25 I; Hab. 3 3, A u s f w and Ob. g
Meridies; gentilic ’?YE,E V TEMANITE, in Job 22 I, Inn ;
Barpav(s)in)c, or eep. ; occasionally Oarpaqs, Bcpamp, Brpaviris
[A,Joh 15 : cp 42 1 7 4 ; Themanites).
reman was originally the name of a clan and district
(cp N AMES , 5 5 ) of Edom, no doubt one of the oldest
and most important, and is genealogically described as
the eldest son of Esau’s first-born son Eliphaz (Gen. 3 6
I I 15 [8aprav E] I Ch. 136). In Gen. 36 42 (I Ch. 153)
Teman is counted among the ‘ dukes ’ ( ’aZZz@h),or clans
.
(‘lkfh),of EDOM( q . . 5 4), not, however, heading the
I. T H E T E M P L E
For the ancient Israelites, as for the ancient Semites
in general,a ,temples was the abode of a deity-a
1. Meaning.
bFt~.szl(sN n,q)-in the strictest meaning
Of the and not in the in
which we ’peak Of Christian places Of worship as
houses Of God. A temp1e in antiquity was in the
first instance, a place of meeting for the worshippers of
the deity; many ancient temples were accessible to
none but the priests, and the altar-the place of worship
in the Of the expression-was usually
* Cp Gen. 25 3 @ (Barpav [AD], Bep. [E ; om. L], brother of
Dedan).
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
list. In the list of ancient Edomite kings we find a king
called ‘ Husham, of thelandof theTemanites(Gen. 3634).’
In Ezek. 25 13 the prophet threatens destruction to Edom
‘from Teman even to Dedan.’ Laterwriters use ‘ Teman‘
as a poetical synonym for ‘ Edom ’ (Amos 1 1 2 [on date,
see AMOS, 5 91. Ob. g [cp. Jer. 49221, Jer. 4920 Hab. 3 3
Bar. 3 2 2 J ) : but in Jer. 4 9 7 we seem to find Tenian
recognised as the name of a district. ‘ I s wisdom no
more in Teman ? ‘ must be taken in connection with the
description of the oldest of Job’s friends as ‘the
Temanite ’ (Job 2 II etc. ). I Eliphaz the Edomite ‘
must refer to the district best known for proverbial
2513 (already quoted) entitles us to assume that Teman
was in the N. (NE.), for the land of Dedan was
certainly to the S. (SE.) of the land of Edom. (This
suggests a comparison of the name with Jamin =Jerah-
meel. ) See Amos 1x2, where Bozrah is mentioned as
the capital of Teman. Bozrah being situated in the
district of Gebal (Ps. 8 3 8 ) , northward from Petra, we
having much the same limits a s the later district of
Geball in spite of the fact that Teman and Bozrah in
; Amos1 12 are the names, not merely of a district and
its chief town, but of the land of Edom and its capital.
Cp Kautzsch. in Riehm UWBZ 1648 * Buhl Edomiier 30.f ;
Lury Edoomiter 26. T r k b u l l ( K d e h d u t - k e a 1 1 7 5 ) takes
adiff& view: keman ‘ wasprobably the portion bf Edomwhich
lay directly S. or Teman-ward of Canaan.’ Trumbull even
finds a trace of the old name ;n the Nakb (‘pass’) d y e m e n
which goes northward from W2dy Fikreh “over against ancien;
Teman’ ; and in Josh. 15 I he would render the closing words
p’n X?p (RV ‘ a t the uttermost part of the south’) ‘from the
extremity of Teman’ (so, too, the pioneer British critic Geddes).
Greene too (He6. Migration 145) regards Teman a s the
southern part of Edom, now knbwn as cESera as distinguished
from the northern (Gebalene), and including tde Idumzan range
as far N. as Mt. Hor. According to EUS.and Jer. (OS 260 96 :
155 32), Thaiman wasthe name of a village distant 15 (Jer. says,
5) R. m. from Petra, and the seat of a garrison. T. K. c.
TEMENI (’Jp’n [Baer], ’Jp’n [Gi.], and ‘JQ’n; cp
T EMAN ), son of ASHUR,of the tribe of Judah ; I Ch. 46 (Barpav
[BA], -vel [Ll). Probablymiswritten for ’??, Timni, the gen-
tilic of Timnah. See TIMNAH i. T. K. C.
sitnated, not within, but without the building known
as the temple. The temple. rightly considered, is the
dwelling-house of the deity to whom it is consecrated,
and whose presence is denoted by a statue, it may be,
or some other sacred symbol. The erection of temples,
accordingly, can always he regarded as already indi-
cating advanced development of the religion concerned.
For the temple is never the original dwelling-place of
the deity. In the most primitive phase of religion, and
particularly in the of the oldest forms of Semitic
religion, the deity u-as found, in the first instance, in
certain natural objects and features which impressed
1 G EBAL (q.”.) is a late name of Arabic origin.
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
the primitive worshipper (see N ATURE -W ORSHIP ) ; high
mountains, rocks of peculiar formation, wide-spreading
trees, shady groves, springs of water and the like were
regarded as seats of deity and places where his servants
could meet with him, and bring him their gifts, though
temple building of any sort there was none. Such
natural objects, where human intervention and labour
were unnecessary, are everywhere older than images
and suchlike accessories. In the primitive Hebrew
worship, in particular, temples played but a subordinate
part. Ordinarily they were wholly superfluous. Sacri-
fice was offered under the open sky. The natural
objects which were regarded as seats of deity required
no protecting c0vering.l Often they had no need of a n
altar even; the sacred rock was itself an altar; c p
Gen. 28, where Jacob anoints- that is, presents his
offering of oil upon-the stone which sheltered the
deity. At the sacred springs, wells, and caves the
gifts of the worshippers are simply dropped in, as, e.g.,
the well of Zemzem at Mecca (cp A LTAR, NATURE-
W O RS H IP ).
The situation changed as soon as men began to make
images of the deity. Wherever such an image had
come into existence, there naturally arose
a' Oldest also the need for a house to shelter it. In
~~~~~ the case of a costly image, too, theft had
to be guarded against (cp Judg. 1 7 . f ) ;
sonleone was required to watch and tend it ; but here
again we observe that, in principle and to begin with,
nothing more is required than some simple housing,
such as the worshipper is ordinarily in the way of
constructing for himself. A modest apartment in the
family dwelling-house sufficed, as the story of Micah's
graven image shows (Jndg. 17). Here again it is not a
place of worship-a meeting-house for worshippers-
that has to be provided, but simply a dwelling-place
for the image, or, if you will, for the deity. Still less
was any spacious apartment or stately palace reqnired,
because according to the ancient Hebrew conception
the deity chose rather to have his dwelling in [thick]
darkness. Even in Solomon's temple the apartment
occupied by the deity, the so-called Holy of Holies,
was quite small, plain and dark (see below, 5 7 end).
In accordance with this is the fact that in the OT we read of
temples only where there is a n ephod. Micah had a house for
his ephod (Judg. 17 5 ) : at Dan this same ephod afterwards had
a temple, as doubtless also had Gideon's ephod at Ophrah (Judg.
18 8 24f.). Similarly at Nob there was a great temple with a
numeroils priesthood 'in connection with the famous oracular
image there ( I S. 21). The sacred ark, the most sacred object
in Israel, stands in this respect in the same category with t h e
image as representing the deity. It, too, naturally requires to
be housed; it Cannot he left simply in the open. The house
assigned to it w a ~the same in kind as those its worshippers
!ived in. As long as these lived in tents, the ark also remained
in a tent. After the settlement in Canaan, it received a house
of stone at Shiloh. But even then it was not absolutely
necessary that it should have a house of its own, entirely to
itself. After the temple at Shiloh had been destroyed, no one
for a long time thought of getting a new house built for the ark.
After it had been brought back from Philistia it wandered about
from place to place, finding a temporary resting-place now in the
house of a prominent citizen, now in that of a royal official,
until at last within the precints of David's palace it found
shelter merely in a simple tent (see A RK O F THE COVENANT).
W e know nothing in detail as to the arrangement of
the oldest Israelite temples. W e can only conjecture
that they were built on the same model as those of the
Canaanites, for here also the conquered were doubtless
the teachers of the conquerors. The Canaanites at
that period already had large temples of their own.
T h e temple of El-Berith a t Shechem was, we know,
the place of refuge of the Shechemites in times of
danger, and must therefore have been large and
strongly built (Judg. 946f.). At Gaza there was a
great temple with a hall, the roof of which was
1 The ka'da of Mecca, even, is no dZth-21 (house of God),
'household god ' no covering for the black stone worshipped
there. The ,to;, in question is, in fact, visible frbm without,
let into the wall, and the entire ka'da is merely an expansion of
the stone ; cp Wellh. Ue2d.P) 3, 69, PJ 73.
4925
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
supported by two pillars (Judg. 1629). Here, too, it
need hardly be pointed out, the fundamental idea was
the same; the principal thing was the sanctuary, the
apartment for the image or other sacred object ; in
connection with this there ultiniately arose also another
apartment or hall to which the worshippers of the god
had access, and in which they had audience of him.
In what sense Solomon's temple can be spoken of as
something new, may easily be judged from what has
3. already been said. In their general
temple. arrangement and details temple and
palace were alike wonders to Solomon's
David's subjects, such as had never been seen
parations' before ; but the conception of a temple
of Y a h d was not in itself any novelty. Tradition
assigns the original idea to David; according to our
present books of Samuel, it was David who first
thought of building a temple for the ark, inasmuch as
it seemed unbefitting that he himself should be dwelling
in a palace whilst the ark of Yahwe remained in a mere
tent. Yahwk, however, the narrative goes on to say,
would not suffer this. Not David was to build a house
for Yahwk, but Yahwk was to build a house for David,
by assuring the permanence of David's dynasty ( 2 S. 7).
The Chronicler develops the idea further: David
himself indeed cannot build the temple, but he can
make everything ready for it ; and this he does in such
a manner that little is left for Solomon to do. The latter
receives rrom David plans and models for this temple
and all its furniture ; the stone and timber are all hewn
and prepared, the workmen engaged and trained, the
gold and silver collected, the whole temple service
orgdnised ( I Ch. 2 2 8 ) . All this, however, belongs to
the latest strata of the narrative. There is no historical
probability that David had thoughts of building a
temple. Had it been otherwise, it is not easy to see
what should have prevented him from carrying out the
idea. But the conditions under which such a purpose
might be formed were absent. When David was
building his palace he had no need for a splendid
sanctuary also in his citadel. The ark, of course, he
wanted to have there; but the genuine old Israelite
idea was that in view of its origin and significance the
appropriate lodging for the ark was in a tent. This
comes out quite cle,arly still in the words of Nathan
when he asks (z S. 75f: ; cp I Ch. 176) :
Has Yahwh ever spoken a word to any of the judges of Israel
saying, Why have ye not built me a house of cedar?
I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up
the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day.
Such was the normal order of things. It is easy to
understand, however, how after the temple of Jerusalem
had acquired its importance, the people of a later time
found it difficult to understand wherefore the pious
David had not built the temple. The cause cannot
have lain, for him, in religious indifference; and it
was necessary to find another explanation. Hence the
whole theory now before us.
I n Solomon's case again we need not seek too
exclusively for purely religious motives. It was by
means his intention, as tradition
4, Solomon,s no
motives. represents it to have been, to provide
the Israelites with one solitarv sanctuarv.
,,
legitimate and central, and so to bring to an end the
worship of the high places, and such-like practices.
His motives were more political than religious. H e
was a splendour-loving prince to whom the old palace
of David no longer seemed good enough, and who
wished to have a new and magnificent residence similar
to those of neighhouring sovereigns. In his complex
of new buildings a fine house of cedar for the venerable
and sacred ark was also included, since a simple tent
seemed no longer to suffice for a royal sanctuary. I t
u-as a citadel-sanctuary for himself, not a temple for
Israel that he built.
Only thus can we understand the mistrust and even
4926
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
antipathy with which large masses of the people
regarded the work of Solomon. The citizens of the
northern kingdom still adhered to the ancient sanctu-
aries and went on making pilgrimages to Beersheba and
Gilgal, to Dan and Bethel, the places where their
fathers of old had paid their devotions. In the
southern kingdom, too, the ‘ innovation ’ was far from
finding unanimous approval. Ultimately, indeed (in
Deuteronomy), the prophets came to recognise the
temple as the lesser evil when compared with the
worship of the high places. Yet, at the bottom of
their hearts they put it on a level with the other
sanctuaries of Snmaria or Shiloh (Jer. 7 12 Mic. 15). I n
fact, in religious circles the luxury of the temple of
Solomon came under very severe censure as out of
keeping with the true Israelite character (cp the law
concerning the altar in the Book of the Covenant). T o
lift a tool upon an altar stone is to pollute it ; so also
to go up to it by sieps is a desecration ( E x . 2 0 2 4 5 ) .
A more pointed condemnation of the altar of Solomon,
which was raised high after the fashion of heathen
altars and covered with brass, can hardly be conceived
(cp z K. 1610.8).
On the site of Solomon’s temple cp PALACE,
J E R U S A L E M , 5 19. We may regard it as settled that
it stood on the eastern hill. T h e archi-
5. site of
the temple. tectural history of the place shows that a
sanctuary always stood there, within the
limits of the present Haram. The temple of Jupiter
built there by Hadrian stood, as we have reason to
believe, upon the site of the temple of Herod, which in
its turn was only a reconstruction of the second (post-
exilic) temple, and this again, of course, can only have
been raised on the site of that of Solomon. It is only
as regards the particular spot within the Haram area
that any dispute is at all possible. For example,
Fergusson, Trupp, Lewin, W. K. Smith and others,
have placed it in the south-western angle of the modern
Haram. This is, however, in view of the lie of the
ground, quite impossible. The south-western angle
of the Haram, when strictly considered, lies not upon
the eastern but upon the edge of the western hill. T h e
temple, in that case, must be held to have stood on the
steep slope of the hill towards the Tyropceon valley,
entirely on artificial substructions. In fact, the southern
half of the place cannot be thought of in this connection
at all, for the site did not receive its great extension
southwards until the time of Herod (see below, 5 30).
W. R. Smith (EB(Q),S.V. ‘Temple’) also starts from the
assumption that the whole Herodian temple-complex lay in
the SW. of the present Haram. Now it IS indisputable that
the S. wall and the southern portion of the western wall of the
Haram are precisely those parts of the wall the external
features of which betray a Herodian origin. Smith‘s contention,
further that the dimensions of the Herodian temple as given by
Joseph& entirely exclude the sacred rock from the temple
limits can hardly be maintained, a s will presently be shown.
Moreover, apart frnm any other consideration, his argument
fails in view of the lie of the ground, a s can very well be seen
from his own map : between the SW. corner and the NW.
corner of his temple area there is a difference of level of 50 ft:
between the SW. and NE. corner of his temple court, a s i m i l s
difference of 90 ft. In other words : his temple stands entirely
on the steep south-western slope of the hill, and numerous sub-
structions would have been necessary in order to secure even
the small area that was necessary ; no less improbable is it that
the temple should have stood on a level so considerably below
the summit of the hill with the sacred rock where there was a
fine level plateau.
On the other hand, considerations suggested by the
history of religion speak very strongly in favour of the
site of the present dome of the rock. In the East, from
the remotest antiquity down even to the present day,
sacred sites have always maintained themselves with
unyielding tenacity through all religious changes. Thus
there is a high degree of probability that what is to-day
regarded as the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in
the mosque of ‘Omar, the second holiest site in all
Islam, should from the first have been a particularly
sncred point. The rock is doubtless to be regarded
4 927
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
as the scene of the angelic appearance in z S. 21. which
marked the place as a site of a sanctuary of Yahwe (cp
Judg. 6 I I f. 13 I?). The statement of the Chronicler that
Solomon built his temple here at the threshing-floor of
Oman, has every probability in its favour. That the
sanctity of the place goes back to a still earlier time
is not unlikely.
I n this case there arises only the question a s to the place
more precisely where the temple stood with reference to this
sacred rock. Several scholars (Kosen, Schick, and others)‘
have supposed that the rock was in the Holy of Holies and
that the ark stood upon it. This is also an old Christian
and Mohammedan tradition ; that such a tradition was current
among the Jews in N T times is evident from the Talmudic
legend that in the Holy of Holies the place of the lost
ark was taken by a stone called the ‘foundation stone’ ( p ~
il‘nw, Yami 5 2 ) . Further, this stone was identified with
Jacob’s stone at Bethel (cp Rashi on Gen. 28 and Breithaupt’s
notes). Both Mohammedans and Christians transferred these
legends to the Sabra, which the former accordingly venerated
a s ‘ a g a t e of heaven’(1bn ‘Abd Rabbih ‘Zkd 3369). Moham-
medan sources enable us to trace back this’identification to the
Moslem Jew Wahb ibn Rlonabbih, who enriched Islam with so
many Jewish fables and died a century after erusalem was
taken by the Arabs (Tabari 1571 f: : Ibn a2Fak-h 97 3).
Eutychius, on the other hand, who is the first Christian writer
to apply the Jewish legend to the Moslem Sahra, 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. This identification how-
ever, is impossible were it only by rezson of the diminsions
of the rock which is ahout 59 ft. I17.7 metres] long, 512 ft. [15.5
metres] broad, with a height above ground of 4 ft. I& in. to 6 t
ft. L1.25-2 metres]. T h e Holy of Holies, which was a cube of
20 cubits 1 was too small to contain it.2 In other respects also
the suggestion is attended with great difkulties on account
of the conditions of space. the altar of burnt-offering
would have to be moved codiderably to the E. of the ruck
thus leaving very little room for the court which was to accom!
modate the worshippers-unless great substructions on the E. be
assumed, which is inadmissible (see P ALACE, 5 4).
In a word, there is everything in favour of, and
nothing against, the theory that this rock was the site
of Solomon‘s altar of burnt-offering ( 5 18). This would
fit in with the view that it was here the angel stood at
the theophany. Further, on the rock there has been
discovered a channel which may perhaps have served
to carry off the blood (cp also Ebers and Guthe,
Palastinu, 166). This channel was connected with a
hollow under the stone. Further examination has not
been hitherto permitted; but it is extremely probable
that this hollow is really a cistern connected with the
general system of conduits (cp C ONDUIT S , 5 3). If in
accordance with what has been said we may regard
this rock as being the site of Solomon’s altar of burnt-
offering, then the temple, properly so called, lay to the
westward of this, and its site is determined with tolerable
accuracy.
On the text of the description of Solomon’s temple,
cp what is said elsewhere with reference to the descrip-
6. The main tion of his P ALACE, § 2. In the present
case, also, after the many later additions
buildiags‘ have been separated out, we arrive at no
clear account. Much that would be of importance is
wanting ; perhaps its disappearance is in some measure
due to the frequent redactions. How manifold these
were can be seen in the Commentaries (e.g., Benzinger,
Konige, 165). For a reconstruction of the buildings
some help can be obtained from the description of
Ezekiel’s temple (408). True, his temple is primarily
a work of the imagination; but, on the other hand,
his description, broadly speaking, agrees with I K. 6.
That, as a former priest, he was familiar with the first
temple may be taken for granted; there is also an u
0 ~ ~ ’ wprobability
-i that in’his description he would follow
the lines of the old temple. Such changes as he does
introduce are on the one hand occasioned by his desire
for a scrupulous symmetry in the plan of his temple,
and partly by his determination to remove the dwelling
1 [It is assumed throughout this article that the longer cubit
>f 20.67 in. is meant; see W EIGHTS A N D MEASURES, 8 I.]
2 T h e threshing-floor of Oman cannot have been on the rock,
which has an irregular, not level, surface.
4928
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
of the prince from the temple hill. The features that
may be traced to the working of his free fantasy are in
particular the specifications regarding the courts and
the buildings contained in them. In matters where
these points do not come into question we shall for the
most part be safe in transferring his data without hesita-
tion to the earlier temple.
The temple-complex fell into two divisions-the main
building, the ' house of God ' properly so called, and
the subsidiary buildinRs by which it was surrounded.
!O 0 10 20 30 40 50 BO
FIG.1.-Ground-pian of the Temple.
T h e main building was a rectangular structure 60 cubits
in length, 20 cubits in breadth, and 30 cubits in height,
corresponding, on the basis of the cubit of 20.7 inches,
in round numbers to 104, 35. and 5 2 feet respectively.
It lay E. and W., with entrance from the E. The
measurements given above are, as appears from the
description of the d p 6 < ~( I K. 6 16a, cp ZJ. z o ) , and as is
confirmed by Ezekiel's account, the internal dimensions.
On this assumption indeed we must suppose that either the
total length (60 cubit;) or one or other of the detailed figures
for the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies is incorrectly given
as the dividing wall between the two must of course have take;
u p some space. The thickness of the walls is given by Ezekiel
(41 15) as 6 cubits a measure that may also be taken a s appl
ing to the old d a h . At all events the walls, to begin wit{;
were of considerable thickness a s appears from the circumstance
that for the second and third stories successively they were
made thinner by rebatements of half a cubit, or it may be of a
whole cubit (but see below, $ TI).
Before the d&iZ ( S p ) , the Holy Place, eastward,
stood a porch. Its length was the same as the breadth
SCALE O F F E E T
0 10 2" 31 40 50
FIG. 2.-Section of the Temple.
of the house cubits) and it was I O cubits in depth ;
(20
but its height is nowhere given either in Kings or in
Ezekiel. T h e parallel place in Chronicles ( 2 Ch. 34)
4929
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
mentions 120cubits, which is a sheer impossibility. T h e
text is hopelessly corrupt ; the 20 cubits of @ A , Pesh., and
Arab. are incorrect as appears from the data as to the
height of the pillars (see below, 12) ; these can hardly
have been taller than the porch. Our most natural course
will be to suppose for the porch a height equal to that
of the temple itself, viz. 30 cubits. Perrot and Chipiez,
and others with them, have sought to justify the 1 2 0
cubits in Chronicles by suggesting that the porch was
similar to the pylons of the Egyptian temples; but
neither theword 'ziZum ( n k m ) nor
yet the other measurements would
be appropriate to a gateway of
this sort. I n Ezekiel's temple
one ascended to the porch by ten
steps. This, we may take it, will
have been in agreement with the
actual facts.
The internal space was divided,
as already said, into two apart-
.,
Internal ments, the larger
arrangements. in front and the
smaller behind.
T h e wall which separated them
has, in Ezekiel's temple, a thick-
ness of two cubits. From the
description of the door it is clear
that in Solomon's temple also
the partition consisted of a solid
70 80 00 100 . wall; not of a curtain merely.1
The door was made of olive wood
and was pentagonal-ie., the
lintel was not horizontal hut formid an angle as Thenius
rightly explains, I K. 631 (cp St. Z A T W 3148).* In
Ezekiel's temple a breadth of 6 cubits is given to this
door (Ezek. 412); whether this figure is applicable to
Solomon's temple also we have no materials for de-
termining. All that we learn further about it from our
present texts is that it was a folding door, was decorated
with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers,
and overlaid withgold. This notice, however ( I K. 632),
does not belong to the old architectural description. If
the walls of the h2kd and of the d&ir were unprovided
with carvings, we can hardly suppose that the doors were
otherwise treated ; and as for the overlaying, we learn
from 2 K. 1816 that it was Hezekiah who first overlaid
the temple doors with gold.
T h e inner apartment ( d Z 8 i ~ )was lower than the
main building-being only 20 cubits in height. It thus
formed a perfect cube, 20 cubits in the side. As we
can hardly picture to ourselves the Holy of Holies as
being merely a sort of low annex to the temple,
we must suppose that above it there was an upper
chamber of I O cubits in height, and that thus the
temple roof had a uniform height of 30 cubits
from the ground. From I K. 8 12 f: (see l3enz. ad
Zoc. \ we mav ventnre to infer that the inner room
was perfectly dark. This adytum, called kiter the
Holy of Holies, was the most essential part of the
temple. It was the dwelling-place proper of the
1 According to 2 Ch. 3 74 there was a curtain before
the entrance to the d&r. This would not be improbable
in itself; but there is no mention of it in the old description
of the temple in Kings. Thenius, Riehm, and others indeed
have found a curtain in I K. 6 21 : ' h e drew [the curtain]
across with chains of gold,' etc.; but if these words belong
to the original text they must relate to the altar ; cp Renz.
ad Zoc.
2 T h e other interpretation (Ges., B a r , Keil, and others)
explains the wen: of I K. 6 31 a s meaning that the area
BO
of the door was a fifth of the entire superficial area of the
wall. So also Klostermann with emGndation: the lintel
was 3 fifth-i.c., of the transverse wall, which is equivalent
to saying that the breadth of the doorway was a fifth of
that of the house,-in other words 4 cubits. Both explanations
are veryforced. n-@cg stands in contrast with nip,, 'square,'
in I K . 6 2 3 75.
4930
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
deity, whose presence here was represented by the sacred
ark.
The walls of the d&r were panelled with cedar; the floor
was of cypress wood. According to the present text the walls
were also overlaid with gold ( I K. Szo) ; this, however, is a
later addition to the text (see below).
The anterior apartment, the h&il, afterwards known
as the Holy Place, was, as already mentioned, 40 cubits
8. The long, 20 broad, and 30 high. It also
Place. was floored with cypress and panelled with
cedar, so that of the mason work nothing
was visible. Here again the statements as to the walls
having been overlaid with gold ( I K. 62122 a 30) are
quite late additions to the text (see below, J 9). This
apartment also was not particularly well lighted. Since
the building that surrounded the house was 15 cubits in
height and the dl6ir had probably no window at all, we
must suppose that such windows as the apartment had
were situated above the 20 cubit level of the &batr. We
must further take into account the thickness of the walls
which was such that even if the windows were made so
as to widen inwards after the manner of embrasures (cp
I K . 6 4 RVmg.), they could not have admitted much
light. Add to this that they were provided with wooden
lattices like the windows of dwelling-houses generally ;
so at least we are to interpret the expression 'dtumim
(p'py?; cp Benz. on I K. 64). W e learn further that
the windows were casement windows-furnished, that is
to say, with wooden frames and not mere openings in
the stone wall, a refinement which was unknown in
ordinary dwelling-houses. Also the doorway leading to
the anterior room was provided with posts of olive-wood,
and, in contrast to that leading to the Holy of Holies
(see above), was rectangular in shape. The door was
of cypress and either half consisted of two folding leaves
which were so connected in some way with each other,
by means of double hinges or charnikres, that in enter-
ing one did not requre to open the whole door, but only
the two inner 1eaves.l The width of the doorway is not
stated ; in Ezekiel's temple it was I O cubits (Ezek. 412).
Here also are repeated the statements as to overlaying
with gold (I K. 635). More particularly it is here
stated that the covering of gold was fitted exactly on to
the engraved design (ae&g ?$;?). Thus the decora-
tive work in question did not consist of figures carved
in relief (Reliefschnitzereien), but of figures outlined on
the flat (Konturenzeichnungen).
Stade ( Z A T W 3 1 4 0 8 ) has shown that the various
statements as to the overlaying of the walls of the dJ6fr
(I K. 620)~of the w-alls of the 6 i k d
9. (vv.21 zzu 30), of the doors ( w .3 z 3 5 ) ,
tion and of the cherubim (v.28). and of the altar
decoration. in the h2kd (v. 2 2 6 ) with gold are all
very late additions to the text. From the point of view
of literary criticism they can be shown to be such by the
circumstance that they come in at the wrong place and
moreover that, in part at least, they are absent from 6.
Besides, their incorrectness in point of fact appears from
certain other data of the OT.
On the occasions when the temple is despoiled, the foreign
foes and King Ahaz when in financial straits take everything of
value, hut the covering of gold is not mentioned, though this
certainly would not have been left untouched had it existed
( I K 14 26 z K. 1 4 r q 18 17). On the other hand we are told of
Hezekiah that he overlaid the doors and doorposts of thehZknZ;
hut it was not with gold (2 K. 18 16). Moreover strictly speaking
a covering of gold must he regarded as inco&atihle with the
carving on the walls. The whole is taken from the description
of the Tabernacle with its wealth of gold and transferred to the
temple of the wealthy king, which, it was thought, was certainly
not less costly (see Benz. on I K. 6 m).
That the temple walls were adorned with carvings is
more credible. I n Ezekiel's temple ( 4 1 1 7 5 ) we read
that the whole wall was in like manner decorated with
carved cherubim and palms, a palm between two
1 Ewald Keil and others think of the doors as horizontally
divided ea;h in;o an upper and a lower half of which only the
lower had t o be opened on entering. .Agai&t this cp Thenius
on I K. 634.
4931
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
cherubs. Here, however, great suspicion cannot but
be aroused by the fact that the relative notice ( I I(.6 1 8 )
is wanting in 6,
that the verse disturbs the connection in
the most violent way, and that with its statement that
' all was of cedar ' it is inconsistent with what has been
said in I K. 615. Nevertheless, there i s nothing im-
probable in the supposition that the temple walls were
at a later date decorated with carvings (as we are led to
infer from Ezekiel). Elsewhere, also, we read of later
adornments of the temple ( 2 K. 128fi 29 1 6 1 0 8
23 4 TI f:). Thus we may safely regard the carvings as
having been the work of a later king.
W e are not told anything as to the construction of
the roof of the building. Many scholars, such as Lund
(see Die alt.yud. Heiligthzi'ner),Hirt (see
Der Tempel Salomos). Schnaase (Gesch. d.
bizdenden K@nste,1; 1843), take it to have been gabled;
but according to 2 K. 2312 2 Ch. 39 this cannot have
been the case ; the roof was flat. It is highly probable
that, as in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon
(see P ALACE ), it was made of beams and planks of
cedar. Upon this we may suppose to have been laid,
for protection against the weather, a coating of clay,
according to ancient custom, 0; perhaps even slabs of
stone. T h e usual railing or battlement ran round it
(cp Dt. 228). W e must assume some sort of subsidiary
arrangement for the support of the beams, since cedar
beams of the length specified must have bent if un-
propped. T h e text says nothing of this ; but in the case
of the house of the forest of Lebanon, where the span
was much less (only 124 cubits, about 21% ft. ), we hear
of struts (lit. shoulder-pieces I K. 7 2 5 6 ,see Benz.
ad Zoc. and PBLACE, J 5,with illust. ) on the pillars which
served as supports for the beams of the roof. W e must
think of similar supports projecting from the walls in the
case of the temple building.
T h e main building was surrounded on three sides
(N., W., and S.) by a side building, or yZ@ (E'S;,
AV ' chamber,' RV ' story ') in three stories
ll. Side- containing ' side chambers,' $fa'& (niy);(
AV ' chambers ' ; cp Ezek. 41 5 5 ). The
under story was 5 cubits broad, the middle one 6 cubits,
and the upper 7. T h e increasing width seems to
have been obtained by narrowing the temple wall, which
diminished in thickness by successive steps or rebate-
ments on the outside ( I K. 6 6 RV). Thus the cedar
beams which formed the floors (and the roofs) of the
side chambers were not built into the temple wall but
rested upon the rebatement (cp fig. 2 ) .
Stade has conjectured-what is not at all improhable-that
this was also the case with the exterior wall of the side-building.
In that case the differentialbreadth of I cubit falls to be divided
between the two walls ; the thicknebs of the temple wall there-
fore diminished with each story by only half a cubit, which is
much the more probable view. On this basis we shall have to
suppose that the temple wall at the base of the middle story was
still 5+ cubits thick, at the base of the upper story 5 cubits, and
above the upper story 4 cubits thick (see fig. 2). The thickness
of the external walls of this subsidiary buildin is not given in
I K. Ezekiel gives it as 5 cubits, and this w& doubtless have
been the old measurement (Ezek. 41 9).
T h e height of each story from floor to ceiling was 5
cubits ( I K.610). and thus the height of the whole
structure over 15 cubits (3x 5 cubits, plus the thickness
of floors and roof). The number of the side chambers
is not stated in Kings, but in Ezekiel it is given as 30
(or 33) for each story (cp Cornill and Bertholet on
Ezek. 41 6 ) . Thus they were very small ; but this need
not cause us any difficulty, as they were not used as
living-rooms but only for storage of temple furniture
and the like. W e are left entirely without information
as to the windows of the side building. On the other
hand, with regard to the only door we learn that it was
on the S. side ( I K. 68). T h e passage from one story
to another was by means of steps, or more probably
ladders, through openings in the roof ( I K. 6 8). That
1 Lalim, 03!?k is usually rendered as meaning a winding
staircase. For this rendering reliance is chiefly placed on 6
4932
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
This is not equivalent to saying that as late as Solomon’s time
these pillars were still regarded as symbols of Yahw& ; we can
equally well suppose that they were set u p in accordance with
In front of the porch of the temple stood at the a n ancient custom no longer understood, or simply in imitation
entrance two bronze pillars cast by Huram-Abi, a of Phcenician models. If the view j w t taken be correct it
12. The pillars Tyrian artificer (see H IRAM z ) ; for becomes easy to understand why Ezekiel should have ignired
them, or have sought to disguise their original meaning by
further details see below, also J ACHIK reducing them t o mere supports of the roof. And if so it also
of bronze, A N D BOAZ. \Ve are told that JBkin becomes highly probable that the Chronicler is right in assigning
was the oneon the right-i.e. S.-B6‘az that to the left them a position in front of the temple ($?SI
$-5y). I t would
or N. ; but what the names mean we do not know. not be easy to guess how he could have come to place them so
Their precise position is a much disputed point. Many unless he had some old source to g o upon for the meaning of
scholars, including Nowack ( H A 233f.), hold that they the pillars offered above was certainly unkdown to him.
were engaged in the portal of the porch itself and that
the lintel rested upon them. For this view reliance is
placed mainly on E::ek. 4049, where two columns to
right and left of the entrance are mentioned over and
above the pillars of the porch. This evidence, however,
is not conclusive. To begin with, the very circumstance
that Ezckiel does not give the columns the names
handed down by tradition is in itself noticeable. It is
very questionable, too, whether Ezekiel has these
columns in his niincl at all, and whether he has not
rather dropped them altogether as he has done in the
case of the brazen sea. and the lavers. In @ ( I K. 7 4 5 )
is preserved the inforniation that there were yet other
pillars in the temple ; these cannot well have stood any-
where else than in the porch where those of Ezekiel also
are found ; or, if me are to identify the latter with Jachin
and Hoaz, it still remains very possible that he deliber-
ately not only supprezxs their names but also assigns to
them a quite differen): place which deprives them of all
special significance. Some special significance they
must certainly have had originally; the mere fact of
their having special names would be enough to prove
this: there would be no point in it if they were
architectural ornaments merely. Nor is it pOSSibk to
assign to them a structural value as supporting the
roof, for it is certain that they did not stand in the FIG. 4.-Glass bowl with representation of Temple.
inside. There is to be con-
sidered also the further cir- T h e view that they occupied detached positions in
cumstance that there were front of the temple is confirmed by the interesting repre-
quite analogous pillars in sentation of the Jewish temple found upon a glass bowl
other Semitic temples as of the third or fourth century A . D . which shows two
well. In temples of Baal
they are quite usual; the
sanctuary of Melkarth a t
Tyre for examplc had t w o
costly pil1:irs in which
hlelkarth was worshipped
(Herod. 244). The an-
nexed figure, representing
F IG . 3.--Coin representing the temple :It Paphos on a
teniple at Paplio;. coin, exhibits the two
pillars standing wholly de-
tached to the right and left of the entrance. In
front of the temple at Heii-apolis, also, were similar
pillars (Tt-RS, Ked 208, 488). Since the
temple of Soloinon was assuredly affected b y Syro-
phn:nician influences it is natural to conjecture that
i n it Jachin and Hoaz had a significance analogous
to that of the other pillars just alluded t o ; namely,
that they were symbols of the deity. In that case
their origin \vi11 have to be sought in the ancient
rnos5Z66dfh lvhich used to be customary objects in all
Semitic sanctuaries, including those of ancient Israel
(see MAssk:naa ; also Benz. H A 379 f, : XVRS, Kez.
S e m P J 191,n. I ).

BvL&zms).
(;hil~7i) This, however, is not a translation of C ’ i h
hut proceeds upon anotier reading(Benz. ad Zoc.). I n huildings SCALE OF FEET
of the ancient E, no trace of winding staircases has anywhere 0 1 I 3 1 5
,
6
,
7
,-a
I 1 1 0
been found, and it is therefore very improbahle that they are c-
mentioned here. Levy (,VHlVB) points out that the openings
in the roofs of the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were F IG. 5-Brazen1 pillars.
let down (see below, {j 33) are called 1’7h (cp Middaa‘h, 45). quite detached pillars near the entrance. T h e detailed
Thus, as Stade has rendered prohable, we shall most likely have description of the pillars has been preserved in a three-
to think of openings provided with trap-doors and reached b y
ladders or trap-stairs. fold form ( I K.715-22 41f. z Ch.315-17 Jer.52~1-23
4933 4934
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
2 K. 25 17), in accordance with which Thenius was able
to restore the text of the account with considerable
accuracy. Each of the pillars was 18 cubits (about 30 ft. )
in height, and 12 cubits (@ wrongly 14 cubits) in circnm-
ference. They were hollow, the brass being 4 finger-
breadths in thickness. Each was surmounted by a
molten chapiter, or capital, 5 cubits in height. The
capitals were covered with bronze net-work which was
surrounded by two rows of pomegranates. T h e one
questionable datum is that of I K. 7 19 where the niean-
ing can be either that the capitals were curved outwards
at the top after the fashion of lilies (as is also said, for
example, of the brazen sea), or that above the capitals
there were lily-shaped additions (cp Benz. on I K. 7 15).
The temple was surrounded by a conrt, called the
'inner' court, as distinguished from the great court
13, court enclosing the entire citadel. This inner
and gates. court was surrounded by a wall of
three courses of hewn stone surmounted
by a course of cedar beams ( I K. 636). As to the
dimensions of the court, its entrances, or any other
architectural details the description in I K. says nothing.
The measurements in Ezekiel (100x 100 cubits) are
not to be transferred to the old temple, since with
that prophet the court had quite a different function.
H e makes it accessible to the priests alone; whence
the Chronicler actually describes it simply as the ' Court
of the Priests ' (nq$q y ; 2 Ch. 49). In ancient times
and down to Ezekiel's day everyone had free access to
i t ; it was a place of public assembly as we can see
from such passages as Jer. 35 T 8 36 IO z K.12 12. For
the position it occupied in the complex of buildings, see
P A L A C E , 3. In Jer. 36 IO it is quite rightly designated
as the 'upper forecourt ' as it was higher up than the
great palace court. By the ' new gate ' one went down
from it to the king's house (Jer. 2610 3610). This
designation ' new gate ' tells us that it must have been
restored by some later king ; for of course there can be no
question of an entirely new gate, such as had never stood
there before ; there must always have been some way
by which the king could pass northwards from his palace
to the sanctuary. T h e same will hold good also of the
'upper' gate which according to 2 K. 1535 was built
by Jotham ; here also we have to d o merely with a
restoration of an ancient gate. W e may with consider-
able confidence seek for this gate on the upper, that
is on the nort!iern, side of the court, and thus
identify it with Ezekiel's 'north gate' (8392) and with
Jeremiah's 'upper gate of Benjamin' ( ~ O Z ) ,since the
road to"Benjamin lay northward. If this N. gate is
called the gate of the altar in Ezek. 815we shall best
explain the designation as referring to the fact that it
was the people's usual way of access to the altar.
Other expositors (such as Graf) think of 2 K.1614
where we are told that Ahaz set u p the old altar on the
N. side of the forecourt. This N. gate appears also in
Ezekiel's temple as the chief entrance (469 4 0 3 8 8 ) .
Whether Solomon's temple had a third gate-to the E.
-is not certain ; but it is probable. Ezekiel's temple
has one such gate which is opened only on Sabbath and
feast days and reserved for the prince ( E z e k . 4 6 8 ) .
But in the old temple, where the royal palace stood
immediately to the S. of the court, the king of course
approached the sanctuary direct from his house. If,
accordingly, the Chronicler ( I Ch. 9
'king's gate,' there are only two possi
means the S. gate and is to this extent aware of what
the ancient conditions were, or he means the E. gate,
in which case he is simply transferring without criticism
to the older period the circumstances which existed in
his own time. On the other hand, in Jer. 3814 we read
of a third entrance, and snch a third gate can best be
looked for on the E. side. 'The mention also of three
'keepers of the threshold' ( z K. 2518 Jer. 5224) points
to the existence of three gatcs. W e further learn of
the temple court that it was already paved in the pre-
4935
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
exilic time ( 2 K. 1617). So also that in the same period
there were 'chambers' in it. Jer. 354 mentions a
'chamber of the princes' (Ziskath haj-sErim, p i b n n j d i )
which was above a ' chamber of Maaseiah, the keeper
of the threshold,' and adjoined that of the 'sons of
Hanan.' According to Jer. 3610 Baruch read the book
of the words of Jeremiah in the chamber of Gemariah,
which was situated a t the entry of the Kew Gate. Here
we are doubtless to understand partly chambers which
served as lodging for various officials, partly store-
rooms for temple equipments. In the temple of
Ezekiel a series of cells are provided for the priests on
the N. and S. side of the court (Ezek. 4 0 4 4 8 4 2 1 8 ) .
The sacred object p a r exceZZence in this royal seat of
worship was the ark of Yahwe (see A R K ) which had its
place in the Xdytum (iydibtr), the
14. Equipment :
+,he
_-" sl,.k dark inner chamber, and in the
I--.
ancient view represented the presence
of the deity. I t is remarkable to find in the temple of
Solomon this special significance of the ark weakened
by the addition to i t of two cherubim. These stand I O
cubits high, their wings each measure 5 cubits ; the wings
stretching inwards touch one another in the middle of
the house, those stretching outwards touch respectively
the N. and S. w-alls of the d l b k Their faces are
turned towards the E. Beneath the wings that touched
one another was the ark. On the form, origin, and mean-
ing of these figures see C HERUB (cp also Benz. or I K.
630). What is of special interest to note here is that
the cherubs are the bearers of YahwB, the signs and
witnesses of his presence (Ezek. 181019f.) ; it is on
this account that we read of Y a h d as throned above
the cherubim (Ps. 1810[I.]), and the name Yahwk, the
Lord of hosts, now receives the addition ' who sitteth
upon the cherubim ' ( I S. 4 4 2 S. 62). In accordance
with this the dibty is regarded as an extension of the
ark just as the Ka'da a t Mecca is a n extension of the
sacred stone (see above, I end, n.).
Another quite peculiar symbol of deity which had
not its like at the other sanctuaries was the brazen
15. The brazen serpent, Nehujtan. It stood in the
temple-whether in the Holy of Holies
serpent. or in the outer chamber we are not
told. Down to Hezekiah's reformation incense was
offered to it. On its origin and meaning, cp
N E H U S H T AN . T h e absence from the accounts of the
temple which have reached ns of any reference to
this, which a later age had learned to regard as a n
idolatrous object, is easily intelligible ; and, besides, it is
not to be assumed off-hand that this serpent had its
place in the temple from the first.
I n the outer chamber of the h&ZZ stood, in front of
the entrance to the dtbir, the table of shewbread (I K.
620). This was a n altar of cedar wood
16' Of which is not further described in the
shewbread' account of the temple in I K., but
Ezekiel's description of the corresponding object will
doubtless apply here.
According to this, it was z cubits in length and
breadth and 3 in height ; doubtless, therefore, there were
steps up to it. Further, it had, as was usual with
altars, ' horns ' - i e . , corner-pieces resembling horns
( E k . 4121). According to I K. 6zoJ it was overlaid
with gold; but to this statement will apply nhnt has
already been said of the corresponding statements
elsewhere (§ 9 ) ; it is a later addition. The table
of Ezekiel is plain cedar. The use of the table is for
offering the so-called shewbread (see SACRIFICE, $$ 14,
34 a). In order to be able to make out from Solomon's
temple the existence of an altar of incense not otherwise
mentioned, Keil and others will have it that this is the
altar in question. A table of cedar, however, even if
thinly plated with gold, would be useless for the
purpose of burning incense. Moreover, the offering
of shewbread indeed is attested from an early date (cp
I S. 2 I ) , but there is no evidence of any regular offering
4936
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
of incense such as would have demanded a special To the service of the altar belonged a variety of utensils
altnr. ' I n I K. 74'3 an altar of incense is nientioned which w a e :dro inst by Huram-Abi. See Eenzinger on I K.
7 40 45 ; A L T A K , 5 9.
along with the taIAe for the shewbread ; but both this
verse and that immcdiately following it are later Between the altar and the porch, to the SE. of the
additions to the account of the temple (see Benz. ad temple building, stood the grent brazen sea ( I I(.
F.). In ch. 6 there is nothing of any such altar, ahich 19. The brazen 7.23-26). as
to probable shape and
sea and lavers. s~gnificanceof which see SEA( HRA%F:S).
Indeed makes its appearance only in larer strata of P.
Similarly, it is only in a late appendix ( I 1<. 7 4 9 ) To this brazen sen belong the ten
that the golden cardlesticks said to have k e n made by wagons (AV bases, nii'z, mnAC,-~Cth) with la&, which
Scdonion are mentioned. When this were arranged, five on the S. side and five on the N.,
ca~i~~ks. is said it is not of course meant that of the temple ( I I<. 7 27-39).
T h e text of the description of theie lavers is extraordinarily
ths-re were no candlesticks at all in
the temple. It is iin ancient custom to keep a light or corrupt, and inasmuch as the parallel description of the
Chronicler is no longer extant, whilst the LXX offers but few
lamp constantly burning in dwellings ; if at the present data on which a restoration could proceed, it is by no m a n s
day in conversing with fellahin or bedouin of Palestine easy to amend it satirfactorily, and many details in the dcvrip-
one says ' H e sleeps in the dark,' what is nieant is that tion, after every effort, still remain ohscure.1 The folloainc
description rests on the reconstruction of the text upon which
he is so poor that he cannot buy himself a drop of oil. Stade proceeded in 188; (so also Benz. ad loc.); in many details
The Hebrew expression that speaks of a nian's lamp Stade has since ( ~ 9 0 1 )preferred a different intrrpretation. l h e
as having gone out, meaning that he and his family various particulars cannot be discussed here.
have disappeared, i s analogous (cp Jer. 2510) ; see
L A MP . This custom makes it probable that a light
was also burnt in the sanctuary, the dwelling-place of
Y a h d ; according to I S. 3 3 this was the case during
the night at all events. From what has been said above
( 5 7f.)as to the lighting of the h&iZ it will also be
apparent that the use of artificial light in the temple
cannot have been out of place; we shall not err
therefore if we suppose that Solomon caused lampstands
to be made by Hnram-Abi-of bronze, however, not
of gold. The number I O , too, can hardly be right;
as the tabernacle had only one candlestick it would
probably be nearer the truth to assume but one for
the temple also. That there is no mention of the
candlesticks in 2 E:. 25 14 f. may be due to accident
merely (cp Jer. 52 19, which verse, however, is regarded
by Stade, in view of Ex.2529, as an interpolation ; see
ZATCV 3 [1883] 1,733).Cp C A N DLE S TI C K .
I n z Ch. 48 mentior, is also made of ten tables, five on the
S . and fire on the N. side of the sanctuary. The5e are often
explained (as for example by Keil) as having been intended for
the shewbread, but certainly not correctly (see above, cp 2 Ch.
IS I I 29 '3) ; they a r e rather to be placed in the same category
as the ten candlesticks (see Rertheau on 2 Ch. 4 rg).
T o the temple service also pertained of course a variety of
minor furnishings, such as knives, forks, dishes, and the like.
I n T K . 7 4 a S these are introduced by a later hand and
represented a s having been of gold. I n the original description
they were either passed over without mention, o r , t h e y have
been removed from i t to make room for this later notice.
In the forecourt, due E. from the temple entrance,
stood the great altar of burnt offering. In our present
I ~

18. The bronze text this is left wholly undescribed.

But that a description of it once stood
altar. in this place, and that Solomon caused
a n altar of bronze to be made by the same Tyrian SCALE O F FEET
artificer who cast the other pieces, are facts attested by P , L a 1 6 0 1 8

I I (.5 6 4 , cp 2 I<. 1 6 1 0 3 A later redactor stumbled FIG.6.-The brazen laver.

a t this. for in his view there already existed in connec-
T h e wagons which support the lavers are 4 cubits in
tion with the tabernacle a n altar which was now trans-
length and breadth and 3 in height. Their sides arc
ferred to the temple. Here also we may, generally
not of massive plates but consist of a brazen frameaork
speaking, suppose Phcenician influences to have been
ornamented \rith ties or cross-piecrs of brass (mzJg<rZfh,
a t work. The mere fact that the altar was of bronze
EV ' borders ' ). The ties were subsequently removed
shows this, for in old Israelite practice altars were made
by Ahaz for the sake of the metal, so that the frames
of earth or unhewn stone : cp the law of the altar as
alone were left ( 2 K. 1617). Frames and ties were
laid down in Ex. 2 0 2 4 8 In 2 Ch. 4 1 some additional
decorated nith lions, oxen, arid cherubim. The whole
data are given as to the size of this altar ; it is repre-
structure was carried on bi-men axles and wheels.
sented as having been IO cubits in height and 2 0 in length
Upon each stand rested a bi-azen larer, of 40 baths
and breadth. Ther,e are the measurements of Ezekiel's
capacity (see W E I G H T S A N D . \ l s . ~ s W R i r s , 3 [ii.]), having
altar, and may safely be presumed to have been taken
a diameter of 4 cubits (equal to the length and breadth
from the ancient altar, which in other respects also must
of the stand). The statement as to the cubic capacity
have been the prototype of that of Ezekiel. The
accords with the diameter given (see SEA [ERAZEK]),
diniensions given ( z o x 20 cubits) will therefore apply
but the lavers were certainly shallower, and we must
to the area of the base, from which the altar rose in
also allow for the thickness of the metal. As for the
three successive stages each diminishing by 2 &bits;
manner in which the lavers were mounted in the stands
the lowest was 2 cubits and each of the other two was
4 in height. The actual hearth was 12 cubits square,
and it was reached by means of steps. Cp further
ALTAR. (KJfi.), and art. L AVER .
4937 4938
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
the most probable conjecture seems to be that a sort
of hollow cylinder rested upon the stand and was firmly
fixed to it by means of ties and struts ; the upper end
of this cylinder supported the laver. At a later date
these lavers proved stumbling blocks as well as the
brazen sea. They are absent alike from the. temple
of Ezekiel and from the tabernacle of P. In lavers
and sen alike we may therefore safely conjecture the
original meaning to have been a symbolical one. The
cherubinls and animals with which they were adorned
had a t first assuredly a mythological significance.
Nowack and others with some probability bring the
lavers into connection with the chariot of the cherubim
in Ezek. 1 ; there the cherubs are the hearers of the
cloud-throne, here of the collected waters. Kosters
(TILT , 1879, p. 455) explained them as symholising
the clouds. This is possible (see S EA , BRAZEX), hut
cannot be made out with certainty. The Chronicler
disposes of any difficulty of this kind connected with
these vessels by assigning to lavers and sea alike a
highly prosaic function, that of supplying the water
required in connection with the sacrifices. I t can
hardly be said that they were conspicuously well adapted
for any such purpose.
If we proceed next to a consideration of the meaning
and origin of the whole temple plan, it is plain a t the very
outset that it reproduces the funda-
20. Meaning
mental type of the Semitic sanctuary,
and origin of viewed as the abode of the deity in the
temple plan. sense already set forth (see I ). T h e
essential feature is the little cella, the d&r, where the
deity himself is conceived of as present in mysterious
gloom. I n front of this is a greater hall, comparable
to the audience-chamber of human kings, where the
deity receives the adoration of his worshippers. Finally,
in front of the building is an open space with its altar,
where the people can gather together around the
,.
sacrifice in reverential stillness.
I his ground plan-the tripartite-is common to the
temples of various peoples. It is seen particularly
clearly in Egyptian temples, which has led many
scholars (Benz. H A , 3 8 5 ) to think of a preponderant
Egyptian influence here. There are other considera-
tions, however, which serve to render this less probable.
In the case of the other Solomonic buildings Syro-
phcenician influence is quite unmistakable (cp P ALACE ).
Phcenician architects built temple as well as palace, and
can hardly fail to have embodied their ideas in both.
In point of fact all the noteworthy features of a distinc-
tive kind in the temple buildings of Solomon have been
discovered also in the temples of the northern Semites.
Puchstein ( J a h ~ b .d. kaiser2. -deutschen archdol. Znst.
7 13), on the basis of a compwative survey of the extant
architectural remains, thus characterises the Syrian
temple : ' To judge by the (as yet not very numerous)
certain examples of Syrian temple-architecture, a com-
plete old Syrian temple consisted of portico, cella, Holy
of Holies, and side-buildings. Portico and side-buildings
are to be regarded as capable of being dispensed with
according to circumstances. The Holy of Holies can be
open or closed, on a level with the cella. or above it, semi-
circular or angular, and the side-buildings can be either
divided or undivided. ' Robertson Smith (art. ' Temple '
in Bncy. Brit.(9))points especially to the temple a t
Hierapolis (M&ig), which, as described by Lucian,
offers an exact parallel. I t faced the E. and had two
ceilz and apvonaos. In front of the door stood a brazen
altar in a walled conrt. This walled court is also one
of the characteristic peculiarities of the Syrian temple
(cp T. L. Donaldson, Architectura Numz'srnatica.
London, 1859 ; Renan, Mission de Phdnicie; Perrot and
Chipiez, Art in hi.). On details of decoration, cp
C HERUB. The palm tree, likewise so prominent a
motif in the temple, is also one of the commonest
symbols in Phcenician art.
When Solomon built his temple, it was as a royal
4939
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
private chapel, one sanctuary among many, and not
21. History of even the most famous of these ; the
8010mpn,s ancient sanctuaries of Bethel, Beer-
sheba. Dan. etc.. long continued to
remp'e' . Y
rank far above it in the DoDnlar esti-
mation. T h e development in the standing of the
temple and its importance in the history of Israel need
not be dwelt on here (see D EUTERONOMY, 5 13 ; I SRAEL ,
5 33f: ; LAW LITERATURE, § 13) ; but it falls within
the scope of the preseut sketch to trace the external
history of the temple building itself. Unfortunately,
here also our sources are far from copious, and some-
times what has reached us is far from clear. Of
Jehoshaphat the Chronicler relates ( 2 Ch. 20 5 ) that he
bnilt an outer court. The form of the notice-that it
is with an ' outer' conrt that we are now concerned (see
above 9 13)-is due to the Chronicler; but the fact
itself need not on that account be questioned. Under
Joram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah the sanctuary must have
been greatly neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair ;
under Joash a t least extensive repairs had become
iiecessary ( z K. N4fl). Jothani built a new gate, the
' upper gate' of the minor forecourt ( z K. 1 5 3 5 ) already
referred to. The 'godless' Ahaz also beautified the
sanctuary, although, indeed, this is set down by the
narrator to his discredit ; he caused a new and more
magnificent altar after the pattern he had seen a t
Damascus to be set up in place of the old. Afterwards
indeed he found himself in such monetary straits that to
meet the demand of the king of Assyria he found him-
self compelled to strip off the ties (EV ' borders,'
rnisgZr8th)of the lavers, and to melt the oxen of brass
which supported the brazen sea ( z K. 1614 &)-an
incidental illustration of the freedom with which the
kings acted within their own private sanctuary. In the
spoiling of the temple it was no other than the pious
Hezekiah who followed the example Ahaz had set ;
after having in prosperous days overlaid the door-posts
and doors of the temple with gold, he found it necessary
to strip them again to meet the demand of the Assyrian
king ( z K. 18 16). The structural changes made in the
temple by Manasseh were connected with his introdnc-
tion of foreign eastern cults ; on the temple roof and in
the conrt he set up altars to the ' host of heaven '
( z K.2312) ; the houses for the hieroduli and the
accommodation for the horses of the sun ( z K. 23711)
are doubtless also to be assigned to Manasseh's reign.
Josiah removed all this, and took in hand extensive
restorations of the temple fabric ( z K. 2 3 5 3 ) .
According to our present accounts the temple was
plundered by foreign foes four times before its final
destruction by the Babylonians.
Firstby Shishak inRehoboam'stime (1 K. 1426); again, under
Joram's reign, by the Philistinesin conjunction with Arab tribes
(Joel 3 cp z Ch. 21 16f: 22 I). a third time under Arnaziah b y
Joash 'king of Israel (2 K. i4 14) ' and a fourth time under
Jehoiichim hyNehuchadrezzar(2 t. 24 rj). These all contented
themselves with robbing the temple of its treasures, without
carrying the work ofdestruction farther so far as we know.
I t was not till eleven years after the first appearance
of Nebuchadrezzar that the building itself was burnt to
the ground, after it had been stripped of everything
valuable,-whetherof gold, silver, or bronze,-the pillars
also being broken np and carried away ( z K. 2 5 8 8
Jer. 52 12 & z Ch. 36 18). This was according to the
M T of 2 K. on the seventh of the fifth month, according
to Jer. on the tenth day of the fifth month, and accord-
ing to bLof z K. 25 5 on the ninth day of the month.
T h e Talmud harmonises:-on the seventh day the
Chaldaeans forced the temple, on the evening of the ninth
they set fire to it, and on the tenth it was destroyed.
Ezekiel's temple (Ezek. 40-43) never got beyond the
1 T h e text of Ezekiel's description of his temple is very
corrupt. I t is impossible therefore to reconstruct it with
exactitude. Consult especially Cornill's edition of the text ; as
also the commentaries of Smend and Bertholet and the
Archaeologies of Benzinger and Nowack. On Ezekigl's altar cp
Z K W L 1583, PP. 6 7 8 4 5 5 5 , 1884, PP. 4 9 6 8
4940
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
theoretical stage, arid remained always 'an imaginative
22. Enekiel's construction merely. It demands some
notice here, however, as giving expression
temple. to a new conception of the sanctuary and
its significance-new or at least differing from that
which finds expre!;sion in the temple of Solomon.
On the other hand, as already remarked, the later
representation is, as has been pointed out above, in
many respects fitted to be of use to us in our recon-
struction of the earlier temple. T h e fundamental con-
ception of the entire structure is the strict separation of
sacred from profane. The whole temple area is
sacrosanct, and no secular building of any description,
whether royal or official, is allowed a place within its
precincts. The whole eastern hill is set apart for its
exclusive occupanc,y. A protective area, the land of
the Zadokites, encl.oses it and shuts out the rest of
Jerusalem. At no point are the city walls allowed to
be in immediate contact with this land of priests. A
similar determination to separate sacred from profane
dominates the internal arrangements. It is with this
purpose in view that the temple has two courts (whereas
the pre-exilic temple had but one) ; the inner court is
accessible only to the officiating priests and their
servants the Levites. The laity are restricted to the
outer court.
Another characteristic feature of the whole arrange-
ment is the strict symmetry observed throughout. The
fundamental unit of measurement is the length of 50
cubits ; the buildings exhibit by preference the proportion
of I : 2 ; the gateways are 25 cubits in width and 50
in length, the temple proper 50 cubits (from end to end
IOO), the open space surrounding the altar is 100
cubits square, and so forth. T h e entire temple area is
500 cubits square, enclosed by a wall 6 cubits in height
and thickness. Outside this wall a further strip, 50
cubits in breadth, is still reckoned to the holy territory,
and must not be cultivated even by the priests. T h e
northern, eastern, ;and southern sides are pierced at the
middle by great gateways (25 x 50 cubits), each with
siderooms and a gateway. These lead into the outer
court which surrounds the inner to a breadth of 150
cubits on the northern, eastern, and southern sides.
On each of these three sides are I O cells-making a
total of 30-intended to be used by the people for
miscellaneous purposes such a s refreshment and the like
(cp Ezra 106 Neh.134f.). In the four corners are
lesser courts separated off by partitions ; here are the
kitchens where the Levites cook the offering of the
people. Gatewa,ys corrresponding exactly to the
three gates just mentioned lead on the three sides
from the outer to the inner court. Within and in
close proximity to the eastern gate stand the tables
for slaughtering the sin- and trespass offerings (or
~
burnt offerings and peace-offerings). At the N. and S.
gates are chambers for the officiating priests. Exactly
in the middle of the square in front of the temple stands
the altar of hurnt offering. T h e temple building itself,
which stood on a. higher level reached by ten steps,
consisted of a porch ( 2 0 cubits in width and IZ in depth),
the Holy Place (.io x 20 cubits, inside measurement),
the Holy of Holies ( 2 0 x 20 cubits) and the three-storied
side-building. The thickness of the walls was, in the
main building, 6 cubits, and in the side building 5 ; the
width of the chambers was 4 cubits, the total breadth
thus amounting to 50 cubits. T h e total length,
including the porc:h, was IOO cubits, outside measure-
ment.
As the Chronicler relates, the first care of the exiles
on their return was the restoration of divine worship.
I n the first instance, however, they con-
a3. Zemb-
babel,s temple. tented themselves with setting up a
new altar of burnt offering on the site
of the old (Ezra 3 3 ; cp Hag. 214). So much indeed
was evidently indispensable ; without an altar there
could be no sacrifice, without sacrifice no worship,
4941
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
without worship no Jewish community. A considerable
time elapsed before the returned exiles proceeded to the
building of a temple proper. In our present book of
Ezra indeed it is made out as if the work was begun
with great zeal immediately after the return. It has
long been recognised, however, that the representation in
Ezra in its essential features is unhistorical (see ELRA-
N EHEMIAH , 6f., I O , 16 [I], 17 ; H AGGAI , 5 3 (6) ;
I SRAEL, 55 5 3 8 ) .
As regards the build ng itself the O T supplies us with
only a few fragmentary notes, which are b u t sparingly
supplemented by Josephus and Pseudo-
aa HecatEus (ap. Jos. ). T h e dimensions
of the whole temple area are given by
Hecatzus (ap. Jos. c. Ap. 1z z ) , i n so far as he tells us
that the court was 5 plethra ( L e . , 500 Gk. ft. =485&
Eng. ft. ) in length, and 100 Gk. cubits ( = 1454 ft.) in
breadth. The gates had double doors. Within the
court stood the altar which now was in exact accordance
with the precepts of the law, being constructed of
unhewn stones ( I Macc. 4 44). Doubtless also it was
reached by a sloping ascent instead of steps. According
to HecatZeus it was as large as that of Solomon. In
like manner, in accordance with the description of the
tabernacle arrangements, there was but one laver in the
court (Midd. 3 6 ; Ecclus. 503 : the latter passage is
certainly very corrupt). Of the gates mention is made
in Neh. 331 of the Miphkad Gate, and in Neh.
12 39 of the Prison Gate, which last doubtless was on
the southern side. Whether the cells and store-rooms
(Zz'fkcith; aaaro+bpra) of which we incidentally hear,
were in the court or in the side-building of the temple
itself we do not know.' Over the Tyropoeon valley was
a bridge from the temple area which was broken down
by the Jews during the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey ;
its position is indicated by the so-called Wilson-
arch. When it was erected we do not know
(Josephus, Ant. xiv.42; B J i . 72 ii. 163 vi. 62). Like
Ezekiel's temple this also had two courts (aliXai,
I Macc. 434 48) : only-the point of chief iniportance
-the laity had in this case access to the inner as
well as the outer court and to the altar. When on one
occasion Alexander Jannieus did something that mas
contrary to to the sacrificial ritual, the multitude pelted
him with palm branches and citrons. It was only in
consequence of this incident that he afterwards caused
a wooden enclosure to be set up round the altar, the
space within which was thenceforth accessible to the
priests alone (Jos. Ant. xiii. 135). The whole account
of Josephus presupposes that until that time the laity
had unhindered access to the inner court and altar.
In this most essential matter of the strict exclusion
of the laity from the sanctuary proper, accordingly,
we see that the demands of Ezekiel and P were not
carried out immediately but only gradually made way.
The temple building itself, according to Ezra 6 3, had a breadth
and height of 60 cubits. But this statement has no satisfactory
sense. It is all the less credible because we are expressly
informed that this second temple came so far short of that of
Solomon that in the eyes of those who had seen the first it
appeared as nothing (Hag. 2 3). Certainly, therefore, it cannot
have been so very considerablylarger than the other. The text
of the passage is hopelesslycorrupt (cp also Ryssel and Bertholet
ia Zoc.).
As regards the internal arrangements, we know that
the Holy of Holies was empty; the ark no longer
25. Internal existed. A stone three fingers -in
snrrsgementa height was laid in the place of the
ark, so that the high priest on the
Day of Atonement could set down his censer upon it.
It was the foundation stone (&en ftthzjyih) already
referred to in 5 5 ; cp Jos. B J v 55, YCnzd 5 2 ) . T h e
Holy of Holies were separated from the Holy Place by
a curtain (I Macc. 1 2 2 4.11.
~
-<-,-
~~
T h e Holy Place, in like manner, was closed by a
curtain (I Macc. 451); within it stood, as in the former
1 Cp I Macc. 4 38 ; Jos. Ant. xi. 4 7 xiv. 16 z ; Ezra 8 zg 106
Neh.3301037& 1 2 4 4 3 . 1 3 5 f i
4942
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
temple, a table of shewbread. The place of the ten
candlesticks (see § 17)was taken by one with seven
branches which was removed by Antiochus ( I Macc.
123). It was restored by Judas the Maccabee. T h e
Holy Place also contained the golden altar of incense.
As already mentioned, this was a quite recent
arrangement, resulting from a duplication of the
golden table. It is interesting to notice that the
accounts continue to vacillate down to a quite late date ;
Hecataeus and the author of z Macc. 25, each naming
two pieces of furniture in the sanctuary : the former
(Jos. c. Ap. 1Z Z ) the Pwp6s and the candlestick, the
latter the incense altar and the candlestick. On the
Arch of Titus, also, only two pieces are shown.
'The first temple resembled other temples of antiquity
in being built to contaiii a visible symbol of the presence
26.a priestly of the deity, namely, the ark, which
stood in the inner chamber. I n 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 shewbread (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 hut in all others the ritual of the
second tern le was dominated by the idea of priestly media-
tion, and tfe stated sacrifices of the priests on behalf of the
people, which took the place of 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. 447) ; in the
second temp!e the laity were anxiously kept at a distance from
the holy things and even part of the court around the altar was
fenced off,as &e have just seen, by a barrier, which only the
priests were allowed to cross (Jos. Ant. xiii. 13 5).
As regards the later history of Zerubbabel's temple,
the subsequent works upon it and the strengthening of
2,. Ristory the wall surrounding the outer court are
of second associated with the name of the high
priest S IMON 11. (Ecclus. 50 I ). Antiochus
Epiphanes not only plundered it, but
desecrated it by setting up on the altar of burnt offering
a small altar to Jupiter Olympius ( I Macc. 1 2 3 8
4 4 8 54 438 z Macc. 6 2 8 ) ) . Three years later, after the
reconquest of the city, Judas the Maccabee restored the
temple, set up a new altar with new furniture, and
consecrated the building anew (cp I Macc. 1 2 3 8 4 4 3 8
52f: z Macc. 105 Jos. Ant. xii. 76). At the same time
he fortified the temple with high towers and walls
( I Macc. 460 67). so that the temple thenceforward
could be regarded as the citadel proper of Jerusalem.
These fortifications were demolished by Antiochus 11.
Eupator ( I Macc. 6 22) ; but they were again restored by
Jonathan (I Macc. 1236 Jos. ARf.xiii. 551), and a t a
later period further strengthened by Simon (I Macc.
1352). At the time of Pompey's siege (63 B . c . ) the
temple was a n exceptionally strong fortress, defended
on the northern and more accessible side by towers and
deep ditches (Ant.xiv. 42). Pompey took it by storm,
but left the sacred vessels untouched (Ant. xiv. 4 7 ) .
Crassus, on the other hand, plundered it without mercy
(Ant.xiv. 71, H i . 88). The temple was again besieged
and stormed by Herod ; like Pompey he concentrated
his attack on the north side. I n this siege some of the
temple cloisters were burnt and some persons killed;
but the desecration stopped a t this (Ant. xiv. 16zJ).
In the twentieth year of his reign (20-19 B.c.)
Herod the Great began to build the temple anew.
28. The temple Besides the descriptions in -Josephus,
have for Herod's temple a mass of
of Herod. we details andmeasurements in the Mishnic
treatise iMida'5th. Josephus was himself a priest, whilst
4943
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
the Mishnah was not written till a century after t h e
destruction of the temple, though it uses traditions that
go back to Levites who had served in the temple. T h e
two sources differ in many measurements, and the
Midd6ih 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. T h e following 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 (for literature, see § 43).
H e r o d s motives in this undertaking were not so
much religious as political. On the one hand it afforded
29. Herod's him a n opportunity of giving some satis-
faction to the religious feelings of his
motives. Jewish subjects, which he had so often
outraged, and- of gaining some favour in pious circles
throughout the country. On the other hand, he had
his full share of the passion for building, which char-
acterised that age. After raising so many splendid
temples in the various Greek cities of his kingdom, it
seemed hardly fitting that the temple of his capital
should fall b e h h d the others in magnificence. His
preparations for the work, we are told, were made on a
very comprehensive and elaborate scale, so as to spare
the Jews any apprehension lest in the event of his.
death the scheme should remain uncompleted. In
other directions, also, he showed all possible respect
for the religious susceptibilities of his compatriots. As
it was not lawful for any laymen to enter the inner
precincts of the temple, he found it necessary to have a
thousand priests trained as masons and carpenters, so.
that the building might be duly completed.
T h e rebuilding meant, in the first place, a consider-
able enlargement of the temple area. According t o
30. plan of Josephus' account (Ant. xv. 113, B J l z r )
the former area was exactly doubled, and
temple. the perimeter raised from four. stadia
(Ant.xv.113) to six (BJv.52). I n other words, the
breadth (from E. to W.) remained as before-a
stadium (Ant. xv. 113)-but the length (N. to S. }
was increased from one stadium to two. T h e available
level ground on the temple hill was insufficient for a
plan so extended, and vast substructions on the
southern side became necessary. T h e whole S.
wall was new from the foundation. Even to-day t h e
southern portion of the temple area is seen to rest on
immense arches, known in Arab tradition as Solomon's
stables, but really dating from the time of Herod.
The whole area was surrounded by a battlemented
wall (BIiv. 912). On the N. was the gate Tadi of t h e
Mishnah, which Josephus mentions only incidentally.
This, like the gate Shushan on the E., which he does
not mention a t all, must have been of minor import-
a n c e ; the chief accesses were necessarily from the
lower city to the S., and the upper city to the W.
beyond the Tyropceon valley. T h e S. wall, says
Josephus, had gates in the middle (Ant.xv. 115). T h e
Mishnah names them the two gates of Huldah. There
is a double gate in the substructure of the S. wall,
350 ft. from the SW. angle, and from it a double
tunnel leads up to the platform. This double g a t e
exactly fits Josephus's description. There is also a triple
gate, 600 ft. from the SW. angle, which is probably
to be regarded as the second Huldah gate. In the W.
side the Mishnah places one gate (Kiponus), while
Josephus recognises four. The most southerly is
necessarily the one which opened on a flight of steps
descending, and then reascending across the Tyropceon
to the upper city opposite. Now, at the SW. corner
of the platform, there are still remains of the great
arch (Robinson's arch), which must have belonged to a
bridge connecting the upper city with the S. portico of
the temple. Many scholars (as, for example, W, R.
Smith, in Ency. Brit.(@),S.V. 'Temple') look for this
4944
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
southern g d e here. It is more probable, however, that
it Iny somewhat farth82r to the N.,a t the point where,
tolerably low down in the temple wall, the colossal
lintel of a gate was found, consisting of a single stone.
The steps of which Jojephus speaks, niust, in that case,
have been inside the gate, as the gate itself was not far
above the level of the bottom of the valley. Comparing
f i l i i . 163 vi. 62 v. 42, 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 ft.
N. of Robinson's arszh. Here also as in the case of
Robinson's arch, under the so-called Wilson's arch,
have been found remains of the arch of an older bridge
in the Roniau style, which presumably dates from the
Herodian period (as to this cp J ER U S A L EM , 5 8).
Round the entire temple area on all four sides ran
porticoes built against the enclosing wall. T h e finest
was that on the S. side-the Stoa Basilica-which was
fornicd by four rows of Corinthian columns of dazzling
white marble (162columns in all). Of the three aisles
that in the middle wa.s twice as high (some 28 metres)
as those flanking it, and broader by one half (some
IZ metres). On the three other sides of the area were
double porticoes. some 15 metres in breadth with
monolith pillars of some 12 metres in height. All
hese buildings were roofed with cedar beams, richly
carved (Jos. Ant. xv. 11 5 , BJ v. 52). T h e eastern
portico was known as Solomon's porch (Jn. 1023, Acts
3 XI$ 5 12) ; there mnst therefore have previously stood
on this side a structure which was considered as resting
on Solomon's foundations. The court itself immediately
within these buildings was paved in mosaic fashion with
stone.
Connected with the cemple was the citadel of Antonia (see
J ER U S A L E M , B 28). I t lay on the NW. and dominated the
temple area (Jos. Ant. xv. 114). Stairs descended from it to
the -,NW. corner of the area, t o the northern and western
portrcoes.
In the temple of Herod the separation of sacred from
profane was rigorou:,. T h e Antonia, the porches, and
the space inimediarely within these were not holy
ground, in the strict sense of the word. They were
acccssible to Gentiles even, on which
31. The
the outer ' court is actually
and gates. account
ofteu called the ' court of the Gentiles,'
although this description is nowhere met with, either in
Josephus or in the Mishna. In the centre of this
enclosed space rose a platform a t a height of 15 cubits
above the court of the Gentiles-the inner court with
the sanctuary proper. This platform itself w-as in turn
surrounded by a na::row terrace, I O cubits in breadth
(&?; BJv. 5 2 ; iWz'u'd5th, 23). From the court of the
Gentiles fourteen steps led up to this terrace, and from
this again five steps to the gate of the inner court (see
Jos. BJv. 52 ; M i d d J t h gives the number of the steps
differently). There was no entrance upon the W.
side. A breastwork (J@, s5rig) of stone ran round
the whole of the inner court beneath the level of the
steps. On it were placed a t intervals inscribed tablets
forbidding every one who was not a Jew from crossing
the limit or treading the holy place, on pain of death.'
At the top of the steps was the inner court properly so
called, surrounded by a wall rising 25 cubits above
the level of the outer court. T h e inner court was
divided into two unequal portions by a cross wall running
N. and S. T h e eastern and smaller space, which lay
a t a somewhat lower level, formed the so-called court
of the women ('ii:iruNt nlirim, p w ? n?:y Midd. 25).
and was accessible to Jewish women. The western
space, containing the temple buildings properly so
called, was for mccn only. The wall enclosing the
inner court was pierced by nine gates ; the N. and S.
sides had each four gates, the easternniost of which in
each case led directly into the court of the women, whilst
1 One such inscription (Greek and Latin) is still extant
(PEFQSt., 1871, p. 132; Benz. H A 4 0 4 ; Nowack, f f A
2 77).
4945
T m P L E , TEMPLE-SERVICE
the others opened into that of the men. T h e gates
had double doors which were covered wzith silver and
gold, the gift of the Jewish alabarch, Alexander of
Alexandria. T o the W. there was no gate and the
E. side had but one,' which, however, was specially
magnificent and costly. Its doors were of Corinthian
brass. It led, according to what has just been said,
directly into the court of the women. In a straight
line with i t , finally, in the wall between the courts of
the men and women, the most magnificent of all the
gates closed the eastern approach to the temple (Jos.
B J v . 53). It was the 'Great' gate, 40 cubits broad
and 50 cubits high ; 15 semicircular steps here ascended
from the court of the women to that of the men.
Which of these two doors on the E. is intended by the
' Beautiful ' gate of Acts 3 2 , it is impossible to determine.
According to the Mishna ( M i d .14). the last-named
inner gate between the court of the men and that of the
women corresponded to the gate of Nicanor; ac-
cording to the description of these gates by Josephus,
however, there would seem to he some mistake in this.
T h e gates were probably 2 all of them porch-like in
plan, with side recesses (exedrze) which made the con-
nection with the chambers skirting the length of the
walls. I n like manner there was a n upper chamber
above the gateway properly so called (cp Midd. 1 5 ;
T&mid,1I, where mention is made of a n upper chamber
of the gate of Sparks [yir*?: 1 ~ on4 the N. side). This
gave the gates the tower-like appearance of which
Josephus speaks.
Along the enclosing wall ran a series of chambers
(ZtFZk5th)which served for storage of the various utensils,
32. The skins of sacrificial animals, sacrificial salt,
chambers. wood, vestments, and the like, or for various
operations, such as the preparation of the
meal-offering, and so forth.
T h e supreme council also held its sittings in one of these
chambers. Their precise number is unknown. Midd. 5 311
mentions three on the N. and three on the S.; elsewhere
yet others a r e alluded to. According to Midd, 2 5 there were
four chambers in the women's court also-a piece of information
however, the accuracy of which is with reason called in questioi
(Schiirer in Riehm, H W B , conjectures that the statement is
a n inference from Ezek.46zr). Some of these chambers
(whether all of them is uncertain) had upper stories (Yam&15
and Tfirnia'l I ; allusion is made to a n upper chamber of th;
Bet-Abtinas). I n front of the chambers were, as in the first
inner court, porticoes, though much smaller in size. Finally,
we hear of thirteen offertory chests for free-will offerings of all
sorts.
From this court of the Israelites the portion immedi-
ately surrounding the sanctuary was separated by a
breastwork of stone-on all sides, according to the ex-
press statement of Josephus (BJv. 56 A n t . xiii. 135) ;
but the Mishna (Ai'idd. 26) speaks only of a wall running
from N. to S. The area thus shut off u-as the court
of the priests. Laymen had access to this court only
when the ritual connected with certain offerings de-
manded the presence of the persons presenting them.
Within the court of the priests stood on a still higher
level the temple building proper. The ascent to it was
by twelve steps (Midd. 3 6 ) . The ground
plan and dimensions of the building were
building. the same as in the temple of Solomori-
viz , 60 cubits in length 20 in breadth and
40 in height. Two costly curtains shut off the Holy of
1 According to Mida'. 2 6 (cp M. Sk+iZim, 6 2) the gates on
the S. side were these : ( 1 ) fi')J'g l&'@ (wanting in Midd.
; p>? ' d ; (3) n i l i q 'd ; (4) o y 'd ; and those on
1 4 ~ 3 (2)
the N. side were : ( I ) W??; 'd ; (2) pic: 'd ; ( 3 ) O'q?? 'd ;
(4) l'?? 'd. &'&id. 14f: gives three quite different names ;
those at the eastern end leading into the court of the women a r e
not taken account of at all.
2 Jos. BJ V. 5 3 seems to presuppose this for all the gates.
Elsewhere in Josephus mention IS made of the northern or
w w e r n exedra, so that it might seem a s if not all the gates were
so constructed. The last seems to be the view of the Mishna
also. Moreover, a hall or exedra of the same kind existed also
upon the W. side, where there was no gate.
4946
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
Holies (20 x 2 0 cubits), which was quite empty. The
outer curtain was folded back upon the S. side, whilst
the inner was similarly folded back on the N. side, so
that in this way the high priest entered the intermediate
space from the S. and passing along it entered the Holy
of Holies on the N. side.
The anterior apartment of the s a n c t u q ($x*nnlin
Midd. 4 7) was 40 cubits in length. It was entered from
the E. through the porch by a great double door (iyd
51-13> Midd. 4 2 , cp Tamid 3 7 ) of 40 cubits in height and
16 cubits in width (so Jos. B J v . 5 4 ; according to
Midd. 4 1 only 20 cubits high and I O broad). Like the
gates of the court it was richly covered with gold. In
front of the great door hung a magnificent curtain of
Babylonian workmanship ; its colour according to
Josephus symbolised the universe : byssus the earth,
purple the sea, scarlet the element of fire, and hyacinth
the air (BJv. 54). Above the gate were golden vines
andgrapecliistersasbigasaman(B1v. 5 4 ; Ant. xv. 113
cp Tacit. Hist. 55). The sanctuary was accessible only
to the officiating priests. The altar of incense stood
near the entrance to the Holy of Holies, the table of
shewbread to the N., the seven-branched candlestick
to the S. (cp the figures on the arch of Titus; also
C ANDLESTICK ).
Eastward from the temple was, as in the temple of
Solomon, a porch ('ziL8m) 100 cubits in breadth, IOO
cubits in height and 20 cubits deep (according to
Illidd. 47 only I I cubits). Its gateway, which had no
doors, was 70 cubits high and 20 cubits broad (Jos.
BY5 5 ; according to Midd. 3 7 it was only 40 cubits high
and 20 cubits broad). Above this gate Herod caused
the name of Agrippa his patron (B1i. 213) and a golden
eagle to be placed. The eagle was, as may well be
believed, an abomination in the eyes of pious Jews ; and
Josephus tells how, shortly before the death of Herod,
two zealous rabbins incited some youths to tear it down
nt. xvii. 6 2-4).
(%he temple building had an upper story of the same
dimensions with the lower (BJv.55). T h e Holy of
Holies could be entered directly from above by means of
a trap-door ; by this means workmen could be let down
in boxes whenever repairs were needed. The access to
the upper room was from the S. from the roof of the
side-building. As in Solomon's temp1e;the side-build-
ing surrounded the house on the S., W., and N. It
was three-storied and 40 cubits in height. The
individual chambers were not only connected with those
on the same floor by means of doors, but there was
communication between those above and those below
by means of trap-doors. The principal entrance was
on the NE. where it was possible to pass from the
portico direct into these chambers. The whole breadth
of the temple buildings inclusive of the side-building
was 70 cubits ( M i d d . 4 7 , where the separate figures are
given from which this total results). Thus the porch
on each side exceeded by 15 cubits the breadth of the
temple building.
Eastwards of the temple at a distance of 22 cubits
from the porch, in the court of the priests, stood the
great altar of burnt offering of unhewn stones (see
A LTAR ). At the SW. corner was a channel which
drained into the Kidron valley. Twenty-four rings
fixed in the ground to the N. of the altar served for
tying up the sacrificial animals, there were eight pillars
connected by cedar beams for hanging up the carcases,
and eight marble tables on which to prepare the sacri-
ficial flesh (Midd.35 52 Tdmid 35 Sh@dim64). On
the S. side was the bronze laver at which the priests
washed hands and feet before entering the sanctuary
( M i d d . 36 ; cp Y i m d 3 1 0 ); also a silver table for the
vessels and a marble table for the sacrificial flesh
(Sht&ilim 6 4 ; Tcintid4 3 ) . Herods gigantic and costly
structures were still in building forty-six years after
their commencement, when Jesus began his ministry
(Jn. 220)) and the works were not completed till the
4947
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
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. 1. B.
11. THE TEMPLE-SERVICE.
T h e system of worship of which the Jerusalem
sanctuary was the centre assumed
34. its most elaborate and highly de-
veloped form in the temple of Herod.
The immense and manifold religious activities that
concentrated themselves in the temple worship, can
only be adequately realised when it is remembered bow
unique was the position occupied by Judaism's central
shrine. It was absolutely the one and only sanctuary
where the highest expressions of the religious life of a
whole people could be offered. Judaism possessed but
one sanctuary, and that was in Jerusalem.
At the time when the Christian movement was born,
Palestine-though its population was by no means ex-
clusively or (except in such districts as Judaea and
possibly Galilee) even predominantly Jewish-had once
again become the centre of Jewish national life. And
it was in the Holy City, and pre-eminently in the
temple worship, that this life found its most intense
and Jewish expression. Jerusalem was constantly
thronged with pilgrims from the Jewish communities
scattered over the E. and W. worlds (see D I S PER S I O N )
laden with gifts for the temple. And here, in the
elaborate sacrificial worship, they rendered the highest
tribute of homagewithin their power to the God of their
fathers. How immense the influence of the temple
worship was is evidenced by the large space devoted to
its details-the minutire of its ritual and organisation-
in the later Jewish literature (the Mishna and GEnigri),
which was compiled long after the destruction of the
sanctuary. Such pious ejaculations as, for instance, the
following constantly recur. Towards the end of the
Misbna tractate Ta'mid, which sets forth in detail the
course of the daily offering, we read: 'Such is the
order of the daily offering for the service of the house of
our God. May it be his will to build it speedily in our
days. Amen' ( 7 3 ) . The same sentiment finds fre-
quent expression in the liturgy of the synagogue, which
also reflects the influence of the sacrificial worship in its
essential structure. Cp S YNAGOGUE .
Of the more important features of this worship, so
far as known, a brief sketch may here be appended.
As a preliminary to this it will be necessary to give some
account of the officers by whom it was carried on.
( u ) The Priests.-According to Josephus (c. Ap. 28)
the priesthood in his day numbered no less than zo.000
36* t3-" It was only on rare occasions
certain of the high festivals-that
the whole, or anything like the whole, of this number
officiated at one time within the temple precincts. For
the purposes of regular worship this body was. as is
well known, divided into twenty-four ' courses ' (mifmdr,
q f p , ' watch ' = r a r p l a or Iq5qppia, cp Lk. 1 5 8, or
&+vpqds); and the ' courses ' again into subdivisions or
' families ' (nix: 95s =+ u h j ) .
It is interesting to note that JosephusfVit. 11)claimsto belong
by birth to the first of t h e twenty-four 'courses'-thatof Joiarih
-from which also the Hasmonzans sprang ( I Macc. 2 I). Both
the main- and the sub-divisions were presided over by 'heads
( n ' d ~ ! ) ,each of whom was termed respectively 'head of the
course' ( y h ?I j K l ) or 'head of the family' (2H n.2 aN1).
Each ' course ' in succession was responsible for the
regular temple services for the week (from sabbath to
sabbath), and divided up the week's services among its
' families ' according to their number (which varied).
At the head of the whole priesthood stood the high
priest (k8hZn hag-gddZ, 5ixn ]XI, dpxiepetk), at this
time the greatest native personage, both in church and
4948
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
state, to whom was reserved the performance of the
highest religious acts, such as the supreme sacrificial
act enacted on the Day of Atonement. On ordinary
occasions, however, it was rare for him to participate
officially in the temple worship, and as a rule he did so,
according to Josephus, only on sabbaths, new moons,
and the great annual festivals (Blv. 57). During the
time of the Roman predominance the office was held
almost exclusively by members of two or three families
(those of Phabi, Boethus, Ananus, and Kamith) who
formed the priestly aristocracy, and were divided by a
deep social gulf from the great mass of the priesthood.
( 6 ) h i , f e s -Another
. class of temple officials, occupy-
ing a position subordinate to that of the priests, was
the Levites, who, however, like the priests, formed at
this time a strictly 'exclusive and hereditary order,
though, strange to say, they had now absorbed the
musicians and door-keepers, who (even in the post-
exilic period) had formerly been carefully distinguished
from the Levites proper. Later still (just before the
destruction of the temple) the musicians advanced a
step further in securing from King Agrippa II., with the
assent of the Sanhedrin, the privilege of wearing the
white linen garments of the regular priesthood ( A n t .
xx. 9 6).
The Levites like the priests, were divided into twenty-four
ccour~es,'andkach perfoi:med duty in a corresponding manner.
Similarly these were also presided over by 'heads' (DWN:).
(c) The oflciul ' IJmeZites. '-Corresponding to the
divisions of the priests and the Levites there was also
a division of the people into twenty-four courses of
service (nnotjD) ' each of which had to take its turn in
coming before God, every day for a whole week, by way
of representing the whole body of people while the daily
sacrifice was being offered to YahwB' (Schiirer). T h e
division on duty for the time being was technically
termed 'a station' (ma'dmCd, ~ p p ~ )It. seems, how-
ever, that not the whole division, but only a deputation
of it, was actually required to be present at the offering
of the sacrifice in the temple. At the time when this
was being performe(1 the absent members of the
' station ' met together in the local synagogues for
prayer and the reading of certain passages of Scripture.
T h e leading passage on the subject in the Mishna
( T u ' d n i t h 4 z ) runs as follows :-
'The earliest prophets established twenty-four courses of
service (niTman): To each belonged a stal€(TDyi)) in Jerusalem
composed of priests, Lwites, and Israelites. As soon as it;
turn to serve came round to a course, the priests and the Levites
belonging to it proceeded to Jerusalem, but the Israelites as-
sembled in the synagogues of !heir different towns and there
read the account of the creation. (It should be noted that the
w k o h of the course, of priests and Levites, whcn its turn came,
had to be present in Jerusalem.)
The part taken by the high priest in the temple
worship has already been referred to, and need not
36. Functions here be further enlarged on. It may
of priests and be pointed out, however, that the daily
meal-offering of the high priest, which
Levites. was offered in coniunction with the
~ ~~ ~
daily bnrnt-offering of the people (Lev. 612-16),was (in
practice) not so much offered by him as on his & h a y
and a t his expense. .4ccording to Schiirer (Hisf.ii. 1 2 6 8
n. 243) it is this offering which is referred to in the
difficult passage Heh. 7 2 7 , thongh it was in no sense a
sin-offering.
The functions of the ordinary priests, when they were
engaged in the service, mainly consisted in ministrations
at the altar. These will be described in greater detail
below (§ 3 8 ) . T o the priests the Levites were in all
respects subordinate -the strictly priestly function of
officiating at the altar was forbidden to the Levites, nor
were they permitted to enter the inner sanctuary ; their
duties mainly consisted in such offices as the guarding
of the temple fabric, and acting as choristers and door-
keepers (see further below, 6). There were, how-
ever, other high officials of whom mention must be
168 4949
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
made. The most important of these was the stpun
(Arani. pD, the vocalisation of the Heb. form ~ J Dis
uncertain), who ranked next to the high priest. T h e
widely-held view that the st'gan was the high priest's
deputy or substitute has been controverted on cogent
grounds by Schiirer (Hist.ii. 1 2 5 7 f : ) who points out that
a substitute for the high priest was appointed annually,
seven days before the Day of Atonement, to act in case
of necessity ( Y6m.d 1 I)-a superfluous provision if an
official substitute already existed. Schurer gives good
reasons for identifying this official with the captain of
the temple (urparvybs TOG iepoF) frequently mentioned
in both Josephus and the N T , who controlled all
arrangements for maintaining order within the temple
area. Subordinate to him, but exercising functions
essentially similar, were a number of other s2ginim or
captains of the temple police, who are probably to be
identified with the ' captains' ( u ~ p a ~ v y oofi )Lk. 224 52.
Next in dignity to the high priest and the sigan
ranked the heads of the twenty-four courses (inenn D N ~ )
and (below them) those of the constituent 'families'
( 1n q ~v ~ i ) . Besides the above there were various
other functionaries connected with the temple aniong
the priests and Levites. These (following Schiirer) we
may group into three divisions :
( u ) Those entrusted with the administration of the
temple stores, furniture, and treasures. The officials
who controlled this vast department -which included
not merely the custody of the sacrificial plate and vest-
ments, and supplies of corn, wine, and oil for ritual
purposes, but also the care of vast sums of money
belonging to the temple, as well as of large amounts
deposited there by private individuals for safety-were
known as ' treasurers ' (gizbririm, n'!? ; ya{o+liXaKes).
They also gathered in the half-shekel tax (Sh@ 21).
T h e full complement of officials in this department must
have been very large, and may have included Levites ;
but, in any case, the more important offices connected
with it were filled by priests.
Not improbably the 'treasurer' mentioned by Josephus in
conjunction with the high priest (Ant. xx. 8 11) was the head of
be order of treasurers, forming probably one of
belonged the ZnrarkeYZn (i'$,i~~) a word of
eaning 'accountants.' The Jerusalim Talmud
a150 mentions another class that falls within this category: viz.,
the l*p$ynp (rdohrmi), about whom, however, the Mishna is
silent.
( b ) Officials connected with the police department.
Here Levites were mostly employed. According to the
Mishna (Trimid 1I ) , of twenty-four points at which
guards were stationed at night no less than twenty-one
were occupied by Levites, whilst the other three were
watched by priests. In point of fact the whole space
within the low barrier beyond which Gentiles were
forbidden to pass on pain of death (J 31)-i.e., the
inner court, or court proper-was guarded by priests.
Outside of this inner court, at the gates and the corners,
the Levite posts were stationed, and also (but on the
inside) at the gates and the corners of the outer court
( ; . e . , the 'court of the gentiles' ; § 31). All these
gates were also occupied during the day time, and.
amongst other things, it was the duty of the Levitical
guards to see that the prohibition of Gentiles from
entering the sacred enclosure was strictly carrled out.
Patrols also moved round by night and day. At night
it was usual for a captain of the temple, known as tj.8
n ' i n i n , to make a round of inspection to see that the
guards were not sleeping at their posts (iMidd6th 1 2 ) .
Another officer( m p ~ q y 6 is~ )also mentioned under the title
morning sacrifice was offered at daybreak it was necessary that
4950
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
the gates should be opened somewhat earlier. At the great
festix als (when large preparations for additional sacrifices, etc.,
had to be made) the gates were opened much earlier-as early
as midnight during Passover (Ant. xviii. 2 2).
(c) Special functionaries connected with public
worship. Whilst the general conduct of the sacrificial
worship was exercised by the priesthood as a whole (in
their courses), certain special duties were performed by
permanent officials, who, in many cases, belonged to
families which had acquired a hereditary right to fulfil
a particular office. A number of these (who were in
office during the ciosing years of the temple) are
enumerated in the Mishna (Sh@iZdZim5 I ) . From this
passage we learn that there was a n officer ‘over the
lots ’ ( i . c . , the lots cast daily for the allocation of par-
ticular offices to the officiating priests), another ‘ over the
seals ’ (tokens issued to the people, which corresponded
to the various kinds of drink-offerings). These ‘ seals ’
were handed by the purchasers to another official who
was ‘over the drink-offerings’ and who ‘ i n return
would give to the person tendering one the amount of
drink -offering requisite for the particular occasion for
which it was wanted ’ (Schiirer).
The hereditary offices confined to certain families, were
connected with matters tnvolving special technical skill and
knowledge, such as the preparation of the shewbread (family of
Garmu), and of the frankincense (family of Abtinas). Other
officials mentioned are: a master of the psalmody a cymbal-
player (who gave the si-nal for the Levites to begidthe music)
a temple physician, a &ster of the wells, a herald, a keeper 4 some number, say seventy, and began counting the fingers till
the veils, and a keeper of the priests’ garments.
A comparatively large class of officials was the guild
of sacred musicians (mXFrZrim, n”nwa, qahTyGoi,
fepo$dArar, fipwwG01, KtBapLuraf T E Kal GpvwGoi), who
formed a hereditary and exclusive order (now Levitical).
They were divided into three families (those of Heman,
Asaph, and Ethan or Jeduthun ; cp e.g., I Ch. 25), and
these again into twenty-four courses of service. Greatest
importance was attached to the singing, to which the
musical accompaniment was regarded as subordinate.
For the instruments employed see MusIc.
It may be noted that reed-pipes (&riCifim)were introduced
into the choir at the high-festivals (Passover Pentecost and
Tabernacles), and that the only instruments nit assigned ;o the
Levites were the metal trumpets ((uZpQ&dtlr), which were
regularly blown by priests (esp. to accom any the offering of
the daily sacrifice). The place of the 8Gthinim in Herod’s
temple seems to have been taken by the &zzx~nim(n.?:!
‘servants,’ ‘sextons’: see e g . , Tci?~zid5 3). Menial offices were
also performed by boys ofthe priestlyfamilies(7173 *nis, ‘scions
of the priesthood,’ TZwzldl I, etc.).
W e may pass over the details connected with such
subjects as admission to the ranks of the officiating
priesthood (Schiirer, Hist. ii. 1Z I O ~ ) ) ,the residence of
the priests and Levites (ib. 2 2 9 ) , and the sources of the
temple revenue (ib. 2308), the consideration of which
hardly falls within the scope of this sketch ; but some
description must be given of the public worship of the
sanctuary, in, a t least, its typical features.
The regular worship of the temple centred in the
daily public offering (i.Dnn nhy or simply l*Dnn) of the
37. The temple prescribed sacrifices, morning and
On sabbaths and festivals
senices:
daily offering, the the
evening.
number of the sacrifices was in-
creased, and (in particular cases) other
ritualistic elements were added ; but essentially the
course and sequence of the worship was the same.
There were also, of course, multitudes of private
sacrifices offered. But here we are mainly concerned
with the public .worship, which embodies the typical
features of the rest. Fortunately a detailed account of
the course of the daily offering has been preserved in
the Mishna, which devotes a whole tractate to the
subject ( T i m i d ) , based evidently on sound tradition.
T h e substance of this may here be given.
The service naturally divides itself into three
moments : ( I ) the preliminaries, mainly affecting the
priests, and including the slaughter and preparation of
the sacrifice (I 3 8 J ) ; ( 2 ) the offering of incense and of
4951
TENPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
the sacrifice, accompanied by prayer (I 40) ; and ( 3 )
the service of praise and thanksgiving (5 41).
I. T h e priests on duty slept within a chamber of the
inner court. Very early those who were desirous of
taking part in the sacrificial worship
38. The
preliminaries. arose and took the baptismal bath so
as to be ready for the official summons,
which might come a t any moment. When the summons
came the priests who were ready followed the super-
intendent through a wicket into the court. They then
divided themselves into two parties, one going eastward
and theotherwestward, with lighted torches in their hands
(except on sabbaths when the temple was lit up) and
met in ‘ t h e place of the pancake makers’ ( L e . , the
apartment where the high-priest’s daily meal-offering
was prepared), and greeted each other with the words
‘ I t is well; all is well!’ They then passed to the
Hall Gazith (nwn n>ws, lit. ‘hall of polished stones,’
where the Sanhedrin also met) and proceeded to cast
lots. Altogether four lots-not immediately, but at
intervals-were cast during the service, the first t o
determine s h o was to cleanse the altar and prepare it.
The mode of ca+g the lots is thus described by Edersheim
(Temple, 122) : The priests stood in a circle around the
president, who for a moment removed the head-gear of one of
their number, to show that he would begin counting at him.
Then all held up one, twn, or more fingers-since it was not
lawful in Israel to count persons-when the president named
he reached the number named, which marked that the lot had
fallen on that priest’ (so Lightfoot, TemgZe Senice, chap. 9 I ,
following Maimonider).
The person selected first of all bathed his hands and
feet at the brazen laver, which stood between the temple
and the great altar, and mounting the altar carried
away the ashes in a silver pan. While he descended,
the other priests washed their hands and feet a t the
brazen laver, removed the unbnrnt sacrifices and debris
from the altar, laid on fresh wood, and replaced the
unconsumed pieces of the sacrifice. They then all
adjourned to the ‘ Hall of Polished Stones,’ where the
second lot was cast.
During the proceedings above described which took place in
darkness the only light being the glow 0; the altar fire thore
priests td whom the duty had been assigned, were prepar:n the
baked meal.offe+g of the high priest in the ‘place of; the
pancake makers.
The second lot designated the priest on whom it fell,
together with twelve others standing next him, to dis-
charge the following duties :-(I) the slaughter of the
victim ; ( 2 ) the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar ;
( 3 ) the removing of the ashes from the altar of incense ;
(4) the trimming of the lamps on the candlestick;
further, the lot determined who were to carry the
various portions of the victim to the foot of the ascent
of the altar, viz., who was to carry (5) the head and
one of the hind legs ; ( 6 ) the two forelegs : (7) the tail
and the other hind leg ; (8) the breast and the neck ;
( 9 ) the two sides; ( I O ) the entrails ; ( 1 1 ) the offering
D f fine flour ; (12)the baked meal-offering (of the high
priest) ; and (13)the wine for the drink-offering.
Immediately after this the president directed inquiries
to be made as to whether the time for slaughter had
mived (determined by the approach of dawn when it
,vas visible in the sky up to Hebron). On the
jignal being given the lamb was brought from the
amb-chamber ( O * N ~ L ) nxws).
R given some water to drink
From a golden bowl, and led to the place of slaughter
Jn the N. side of the altar. At the same time the
ninety-three sacred vessels were brought from the
utensil-chamber. Meanwhile the two priests to whom
the duty had been assigned of cleansing the altar of
:ncense, and trimming the lamps on the candlestick
13 and 4 above) proceeded to the sanctuary, the one
with a golden pail (-20). the other with a golden bottle
:in). At this point orders were given (by the elders
xho had charge of the keys) to open the temple gates,
:he noise of which (according to the Mishna) was heard
it Jericho. T h e accomplishment of this was heralded
4952
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
by thrce blasts on the silver trumpets, which gave the
signal for the Levites and ' men of the station ' (repre-
sentative Israelites) to c-ssemble, and also announced to
the city that the morning sacrifice was about to be
offered (for these details see the G i m u ~ Eon Tumid).
At this point also, the great gates leading into the holy
place were opened to admit the priests whose duty it
was to cleanse the incensc-altar and trim the candle-
sticks, into the sanctuary (see above). The opening of
the sanctuary gates was the signal for the actual
slaughter of the sacrifice. See Edersheim, Temple, 133,
S A C RIFI C E , 5 32.
Meanwhile the two priests above referred to had
entered the holy place. While the slaughter of the
lamb was taking place the first of the priests cleansed the
golden altar of incense. putting the burnt coals and
ashes into the golden pail ('fa), and then withdrew,
leaving the utensil behind. The second priest, while
the blood of the lamb was being sprinkled, proceeded
to trim and re-light the lamps of the candlestick.
The procedure was as fc,llows:-Only fiveof the seven lamps
were a t this time trimmed-the other two being reserved for a
later period of the service. If the two farthest E. were still
burning they were left undisturbed, and the trimming and re-
lighting of the five others was proceeded with. But the central
lamp, called the 'western' (because it inclined westward to the
most holy place), could only he relighted by fire brought from
the altar. If it happened that the two farthest E. were out
they were first of all trimmed and relighted, before the other;
were attended to. The <candlestickwas approached by three
stone steps, and on the second of these the priest, when this part
of his duty was done, deposited the golden bottle (113) and
withdrew.
Meanwhile the slaughtering of the sacrifice a n d the
sprinkling of the blood upon the altar had been followed
by the flaying of the victini, which was cut up into
pieces, and the entrails washed upon the marble tables.
T h e pieces were carried by the six allotted priests (each
taking one piece) to the altar, while a seventh carried
the offering of flour, a n eighth the baked meal-offering
(of the high priest). and a ninth the wine of the drink-
offering. These were all laid a t the foot of the altar-
ascent, and salted ; and then all the priests assembled
once more in the Hall of Polished Stones.
Here a service of prayer was celebrated, the details
of which are, however. not free from ambiguity. The
39, The prayers Mishna passage ( T ~ m i d S I), bearing
and blessings. on the matter, runs as follows :-
T h e president said : ' Give one' hlessing ' ;
and the priests blessed a n d read the ten commandments (acd),
the ShZma' (in its three sections). They blessed the peopl:
with the three blessings-vi.. (the blessing) 'True and firm
( 3 9 p 1 MN), (the blessing) 'Service' (mi>y), and 'the blessing
of the p r i e s t s ' ( ~ ~ ~ -n-~i>).
,3~ And on the sabbath they added
one blessing for the outgoing temple course.
The points undetermined here are the following :-(a)
how far we are to understand that these prayers were
said in the hall by the priests alone, and how far in the
temple itself by prie:jts and people; and (6) what is
meant by ' one Messing ' and by a three blessings ' ? l
Regarding ( a )it has been usual to suppose that the
ShEma' ( i e . , the three sections of the Law, Dt.64-9
1115-21 : and Nu. 15:;~-41which had to be repeated by
each Israelite every day, morning and evening), pre-
ceded by a benediction and the ten commandments,
was repeated by the priests in the hall, whilst the other
prayers mentioned form part of the pardlic service, and
come later (so Edersheim, and apparently Schiirer).
T h e difficulty about this view is that the benediction
' true and firm' belongs to the ShPmd, which it ought
immediately to follow. In any case, if the benediction
was said by priests and people publicly, must we not
suppose that the S h h a ' itself was recited public& as
well? It is not, perhaps, altogether impossible to
regard the priest's service in the hall-ie., the recita-
tion of the ShEmd preceded and followed by the bene-
dictions mentioned, including ' service' and the priestly #
blessing'-as a sort of rehearsal, 6efon the solemn
1 (See L. Blau, ' Origine et Histoire d e la lecture du Schema,
R E / 3 l [ I S ~ S Ipp. 17g-Zc81.)
4953
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
part of the sacrificial worship, of what was publicly
recited later when the incense ascended from the altar.
W e may suppose also that the people, during the
interval of silent prayer, mentally repeated the same
prayers.
T h e analogous case of the Sheman& 'Esreh ('The Eighteen
Benedictions') in the modern synagogue, may be cited. This
is first of all said by the congregation inaudibly, and then re-
peated aloud by the reader.
The recital of the ten commandments, which is else-
where attested as a daily practice, was afterwards
discontinued, probably for anti-Christian reasons (cp
C. Taylor, Sayings of /. I;athers,(2) Excurs. 4119).
(6) As to what benediction was recited 6 e f o ~ e the
S h t m d , the Mishna gives no indication, and it was
early a matter of dispute ( B . Ber. 116) whether it was
that over the creation of light (ik i d * ; the modern
form can be seen in Singer's Ed. of Hd.-Eng. Prayer
Book. 37fl),or that in praise of God's love, known as
Ahiib2h Rabbah ( = ' with abounding love '). Accord-
ing to the generally received opinion, it was the latter
that was recited in the temple. In its early form this
ran somewhat as follows :-
With abounding (or, according to another version, everlasting)
love hast thou loved us, 0 Lord our God (Jer. 31 3). With
great and exceeding compassion hast thou taken compassion
on us (cp Is. 65 9). Our Father, our King, for the sake of our
fathers who trusted in thee and whom thou taughtest the statutes
of life, be gracious unto us, and be thou also our teacher. En-
lighten our eyes in thy law, and make our hearts cleave to thy
commandments ; render our hearts one that we may love and
fear thy name, and not be ashamed. For in thy holy name we
trust; we rejoice and exult in thy salvation. For thou art the
God who works salvation, and thou hast chosen us from all
peoples and tongues, and brought us nigh unto thy great name
(Selah) in truth, that we give praise unto thee and proclaim thy
unity in love. Blessed art thou, 0 Lord, who hast chosen thy
people Israel in love. (Cp /ewish EmycZ. 1281,and reff.)
The benediction that followed the ShPma', beginning
with the words ' true and firm ' ( x v i nm), is a thanks-
giving to God for various acts of redemption (hence its
technical name gear&), and has been much amplified
in the later Jewish liturgy. In its earliest form it may
not have contained more than the following :-
True and firm(estab1ished) it is that thouart YahwS our God,
and the God of our fathers; our King and the King of our
fathers ; our Saviour and the Saviour of our fathers ; our Maker
and the Rock of our Salvation ; our Help and our Deliverer.
Thy name is from everlasting, and there is no God besides thee.
A new song did they that were delivered sing to thy name by
the sea-shore; together did all praise and own thee as King,
and say, Yahwh shall reign who has redeemed Israel. (See
further Zunz, Gottesd. Vobrtr. d. Jude%,@) 370, P) 383.)
Of the other two 'blessings,' the first, that known as
' service ' (niny), was doubtless a thanksgiving for the
splendid temple worship, which may have been an
earlier form of the present 'AbMa prayer ( = t h e 17th
of the ShPm6neh 'Esreh ; cp Singer, 50f.). and in its
earlier form may have run thus :-
Accept, 0 Lord our God, thy people Israel and their prayer ;
receive in love and favour both the fire offerings of Israel and
their prayer ; and may the service of thy people Israel he ever
acceptable unto thee. Blessed art thou, 0 Lord, who receivest
the service of thy people Israel with favour [for the last clause,
see Rashi on Biriikh. I I 61.
The ' blessing of the priests ' was, doubtless, some
form (not, however, the precative form now used in the
synagogue=thc last of the ShPmBneh 'Esreh) of the well-
known priestly blessing (Xu. 624-26), in using which
within the Temple the priests pronounced the ineffable
name (ala,) as written. After the priests had recited
the Shema' and the accompanying prayers in the Hall,
the third and the fourth lot were taken--the third to
determine who should offer the incense in the sanctuary,
and the fourth to determine who should lay the various
parts of the victim upon the altar. T h e most im-
portant duty of the service that could fall to a priest
was that of offering the incense, and only those who
had not performed the office before were eligible (except
in the rare case when all present had so officiated).
Those on whom no lot had fallen were now free to go
away, after divesting themselves of the priestly dress.
2. The oferering o
f incense and of fhe saCn3ce accoin-
4954
 TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
panied by prayer.-The incensing priest now took a
golden saucer (13) covered with a lid,
2 Ef:Eg containing a smaller saucer (71s) with
~~
. the incense. An assistant priest then
brought some live coal from the great altar in a silver
pan (mnp) which he emptied into a golden pan. This
done, both proceeded with another assistant, and with
the two who had already dressed the altar and candle-
stick, into the sanctuary, striking as they passed the
instrument called mayr2phEh (see col. 3z29), at the sound
of which priests hastened to the worship, the Levites to
occupy their places in the choir, while the delegates
( I stationary men ') ranged at the eastern gate of the
Temple ( =the gate of Nicanor) such of the people as
were to be purified that day ( ' the defiled men ').
The two priests who had dressed the altar and the
candlestick entered first, the former merely to bring
away his utensil, which, after prostrating himself, he did ;
while the latter completed the trimming of the lamps,
and then, prostrating himself, withdrew with his utensil.
T h e assistant priest who had the pan of coals emptied
them on to the altar of incense, prostrated himself, and
withdrew. T h e other assistant then arranged the in-
cense, and withdrew in like manner. T h e chief offici-
ating priest was now left alone within the sanctuary,
awaiting the signal of the president before burning the
incense. When this was given (with the words offer
the incense'), he emptied out the saucer on to the coals,
and the incense ascended in clouds of smoke. At this
solemn moment, the people withdrew from the inner
court and prostrated themselves, spreading out their
hands in silent prayer (cp Rev. 8 1 3 f : quoted by Eders-
heim). T h e incensing priest, also, after prostrating
himself for worship, withdrew from the sanctuary. T h e
period of silent prayer was followed (if the conjecture
given above is correct) by the recitation of the Shbma',
with the ten commandments and benedictions set forth
above. Others think that only the three ' blessings '
(mentioned in TEmid 51) were here recited. In any
case, the priestly blessing was given in the following
manner. T h e five priests who had been engaged
within the Holy Place now proceeded to the steps in
front of the Temple, and with uplifted hands, pro-
nounced the priestly benediction. 'This was pronounced
by the leader (probably the incensing priest), the others
following audibly after him. As already mentioned,
the divine name was on these occasions pronounced.
The people also responded : Blessed be the Lord God,
the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting.'
T h e offering of the burnt offering was now proceeded
with. The chosen priests brought up the various
pieces of the victim from the foot of the ascent, and,
after placing their hands upon them, threw them on to
the altar-fire. When the high priest officiated, he
received the pieces from the priests. placed his hands
upon them, and threw them on to the altar. T h e
appropriate meal offerings (that of the people, and
that of the high priest) were now brought, oiled, salted,
and laid on the fire ; and the drink offering was poured
out at the foot of the altar.
3. The Service .f praise and thanksgiving.-Here-
upon the music of the temple began. The choir of
41. ~ ~ s i c a l
Levites, to the accompaniment of instru-
mental music, sang the psalm of the day,
service. which was divided into three sections.
At the close of each section. a body of priests blew
three blasts on the silver trumpets, and the people
prostrated themselves in worship. The singing of the
psalm closed the morning service, and the private
sacrifices were proceeded with.
The evening sacrifice (which, according to the law,
was to be offered 'between the two evenings'-Le.. in
the evening twilight) was at this period offered early in
the afternoon, about 3 o'clock. It was in all respects
exactly similar to that of the morning, save that incense
4955
TEMPLE, TEMPLE-SERVICE
was offered u f e r the burnt offering instead of before it,
and the lamps in the sanctuary were not trimmed, but
simply lightea. T h e priests on whom the lots had
fallen again officiated in the evening, except the in-
censing priests. For this office another lot was taken.
The daily psalms were the following : first day, 24 ;
second, 4 8 ; third, 8 2 ; fourth, 9 4 ; fifth, 81; sixth,
93; on the sabbath, 92.
On the sabbath and festivals the same daily sacrifices
were offered, only increased. Thus on the sabbath
42. The sabbath the sacrifice was doubled, and so on.
and festivals. The essential features, however, were
much the same. [For details, see
F EASTS , S ABBATH , and the works citeh below.]
G. H. 8.
The literature of the subject is immense. The older bwks are
given in Bahr (Der Salomonische Tempel) and other writers.
only the more important modern work;
43. Bibliography. can be mentioned here.
(a) General: The Archzologies of
,n
$J Saalscbiitz, Scbolz, Schegg, Haneberg, de-Wette-Rabiger,,
ell, de Visser, Benzinger, Nowack ; the articles S.D. ' Temple
in PRE (Merx), BL (Diestel), Riehm's HWB, Ency. 5riL.B)
(hy W. R. Smith ; it has been freely used in the preparation of
the present article) Hastings' D B (T. W. Davies). the com-
mentaries on King; by Keil Thenius Klostemann kenzinger,
Kittel ; Fergusson, The Te&e o f t l $ / e w s , Londdn, 1878
(6) Text andLiterarj, Criticism: The commentaries on
Kings (above): Wellhausen in Bleek Einl.PJ ' Stade 'Der
Text des Berichts iiber Salomos Bautin' in Z A ?"W. 1882.
129-177.
I ..
_.DD.
(c) Topoyaphical: The resnlts of mdern survey and excava-
tion are given in the PEF vol. 'Jerusalem' (London, 1884) and
in the accompanying atlas. See also Rohinson, BR (9; Tobler
Topographie ferusalems, 1853-54; Fergusson, Topograplty
femsalem, 1847 ; Thrupp, Ancient ferusalem, 1855 ; De
2
Vogue, Le Temple de ferusalem, 1864 ; Rosen, Das ffaram
von ferrrsalem u. der Tempelpktz des Moria, 1866; Schick
Beit e l Makdas; ode7 der alie Tempe&latz 1887 : id. D i l
Sti/tslraf#e,der Tempei in ferusalem u. der ?empe&lah dcr
fetztzeit; Adler, Der Felsendom u. d. heutige Grdeskirche zu
ferusalem, 1873 ; Socin-Benzinger in Baedeker's Pal.15J
(d)Solonion's TempLe: Of older works may be mentioned
those of Bh. Lamy, De Tabernaculo FmieriS, de sanCta civitate
JerusaZem et de Templo el'us, Paris, 1720; A. Hirt, Der
Tempel SaZomos, Berlin, 1809; Fr. v. Meyer id. Stuttgart
1839. A more modern phase of discussion may 6e said to beg&
with Bahr, Der Solomonische Tenz#el nzit BenZcksichtipng
seines Verhaltnisses z. h. Architekfur ueberhaupt 1848.
See further B. Stade G Z 1 3 1 1 f l ; H. Pailloux Mono&ajhie
nu temp& de S a d o n , Paris 1885' F. 0.d i n e ~ o l o m o n ' s
temple and CapitaZ 1886: b. Frddrich, Tempei u. Palast
Salomos, 1887 ; 0. Wolff, De7 Tempel von Ierusalem u. seine
Maase, 1887 ; E. C. Robins, The Temple of Solomon, 1887 ;
Guinand Monographic du Tetnple a2 Salomon Ik88-
Perrot-Chipiez, Le Temple de fewsalem et la M&n dd
Bois-Li6an restitu6s a p d s EzechieZ e t Ze livre des Rois, 1889.
L. Feuchtwang in Zi.f: dildende Kunst, new ser. 2, 1891, p:
1 4 1 8 : H. Recker in Wiener allgem. Bauzeitfmg, 1893, hft.
1-4; Perrot-Chipiez,f u d a e a .
( e ) Ezekiers Temple: Cornill's edition of text; tbecommen-
taries of Smend, Cornill, Bertholet: also Toy in S B O T .
Rottcher, Proben A Tlicher Schnifterkliirung (r833), id. Neu;
Aehrenlese; Balmer-Rinck, D e s Prophefen Ezekiel Gesicht
oum Tempel, 1858; Kiihn in St. KY.,1882. H. Sulley, The
Temple qfEzekiers Prophecy, 1889 : Stade, CZ 247&
V, Zerubba6eePs Temple: De Moor and Imbert, in Le
Mushon, 7 and 8 ; the commentaries of Ryssel and Bertholet on
Ezra and Nehemiah.
(9)Herod's Temple: A tolerably complete catalogue of the
older literature on Herod's temple will be found in Haneberg
Die religiose Altertlimer der Bibel, z & f . for the rnoder;
literature see Schiirer Gf VPI 1 3 2 3 s We me&on here : Mishna
tractate Middoth, with the commentary of Obadja Bartenora in
Surenhusius, 5 ; E T in Barclay, The Talmud, 2 5 5 8 Moses
Maimonides in ?pin l:(discussion of the Talmudic details as to
the temple and its furniture, in Ugolini's Thes. 8 ) ; J. Lightfoot
Descrz fro terxpli Hierosolymitani (also in Ugolin. Thes. 9)
Hirt, %eber die Banten Herodes des Grossen ' in Abh. B e d
Akad. :philoZ.-hist. classe, 186-17,pp. 1-24 : Haneberg, Alter-
ttZmer, 266-336; Spiess, Das f m s a l e m des fosephus, 1881, pp.
4 6 3 ; id. Der TempeZ des ferusalem wahrend des i'efzten
Jahrhxnderts seims Bestandes nach fosephxs 1887 ' Schiirer
Riehm, HWB, 1663,X ; Block, E n k r f ebes G A n d r i s s e l
vom Herodianischen T e p e Z nach Talmudischen QueZZen
6ear6eifet : Hildesheimer D. Beschreihungd. Herod. Tempels
im Tractate Middoth u. b.' FI. Josephus' in/ahresber. d. Rabb.
Senrirrrars f: d. orthodoxe fudentum, 1876-7 ; Lewin, The
Siege of/Prusalem by Titus, 1863.
(h) Temple worship. In addition t o the works cited above,
see esp. Schiirer, G V I P ) ,5 24 (bibliography); SYNAGOGUE, § 11.
1. B. ($5 1-33> 43) ; G . H. B. (% 34-42).
4956