Temperance

The Eng. word 'temperance* ocJ^s L Sci^ture only in Ihe NT ; but the idea of temperance, i.e. self-control, pervades the Ui asweU as the Scriptures of the Christian period, and the duty of realizing it is strongly if'^ted on throughout the Bible. The legal regulations about clean and unclean foods required sell- restraint 'n the matter of diet. The Wisdom literature dealing especially with practica conduct is explicit and urgent on the duty of self-coatrol. This is prominent in the Bk.

of Proverbs, as in the sayings concerning ea<in^-' W hen thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently w-hat or w^ho) is bJfore thee ; and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man 'given to appetite' (Pr 23'- ») ; vruve- drinking-' Look not upon the wine when it is red ' etc (v ") ; licentiousness— the laws against adultery, the frequent warnings in Prov.

against ■ the strange woman ' ; anger-' He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he t^^^at ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city (1(? ) j ,-ei,<;«7e-'llejoice not when thme enem.v fal leth ,p 0417). and elsewhere greed 0/ wealth— 1 liou Shalt not covet- (Ex 20") ; ' Woe unto them that join house to house,' etc. (Is 5').

A spc"hc seli- restraintwaa put upon the Nazintes (see NAzra- ITE) and a similar self -restramt was practised by the Rechabites (see Rechabites); and certain forms of abstinence were required by the Law in all tlie Jews, as at fasts (see Fasting), and pre TK.MPLE TEMPLE 695 vious to solemn religious services (Ex 19"). The relijjious life of the OT saint was not ascetic, but it was simple and free from the excesses of jiagan- ism.

Wliile the lBri\elite was encouraged to leceive the gifts of tiod with thankfulness, and to use them without fear of any Nemesis on his prosperity, he was not to plunjje into reckless self- indulgence. Solomon's lu.xunous living is not Israelite, but a result of the importation of foreign manners. Eaal- worship was denounced for its licentiousness as well iis for its idolatry, and tlie unfaitlilulness to Jehovah it involved on the part of the Israelites.

The prophets repeatedly de- nounce the luxurious living of the wealthy, and the growth of self-indulgence generally, as foreign to the rigour of righteousness, and certain to bring ruin on a nation (e.g. Am 4' d'", Is S""" 5"- '■').

^Vlien we come to the NT treatment of this subject, we have the description of John the Baptist in his rough dress and simple fare, feeding on the native products of the wilderness (Mk 1'^), whom our Lord contrasts with those who ' wear soft raiment,' and ' are in kings' houses ' (Mt 1 1'). But the .supreme example of temperance is atibrded by the lile of Jesus Clirist. That was not ascetic ; the charge of gluttony and wine, bibbing was brought again.

st our Lord by malignant slanderers because He did not practise asceticism. And yet the extreme simplicity of His living, the many hardships He voluntarily endured, and His com- plete unconcern with regard to His own comforts, as well as His perfect freedom from all forms of sin and sellishness, show Him to us as one who lived the ideal life of temperance, avoiding excess and extravagance in all directions. This was the method of life He inculcated on His disciples.

There is no passage in His teaching runuiring asceticism, and no direct commendation of fasting (the word 'fasting' is omitted in KV of Mk ",)-" and the parallel ^It 17^ in accord.ance with best MSS) ; but there is much urgent dissuasion from the life of ease and self-indulgence. The di.scii)le of Christ is required to hold his thoughts as well as his words and actions under control (e.g. Mt .")-'• ^, "■ **). In the par.

able of the Rich Man and Lazarus tlie self-indulgence of the former, while he ignores the sullcrer at his gate, aggravates his guilt. The Or. word for 'temperance,' iyKpireia, .ind its verbal form, (yKpa-Tevbiiai, are found in tlie NT only in Acts (there ascribeil to St. Paul), St. Paul's Epistles, and 2 Peter. Derived from Kpiro^, ' strong,' they indicate the strength a man uses towards himself in self-control. St.

Paul makes temperance one of the subjects of his very per- sonal address to Felix (Ac 24^') ; and elsewhere brings it forward as one of the fruits of the spirit (Gal 5!^). Using the verbal form of the same word, he appeals to the analogy of the athlete whose training involves univer.sal self-restrnint (1 Co !)•'•). The virtue is one of the requisites for a bishop (Tit 1"). In 2 P 1' it appears in an a.sccniling series of commended attainments, following know- ledge and preceding godliness.

See also art. SoiiER. W. F. Adeney. TEMPLE (A.S. tempel, from Lat. templum, a space marked out ; a s.anetiiary : cf. riixtyo^ [from Tifivu, ' to cut '], a piece of land cut otl' from the rest and dedicated to a god). — In the EV 'temple' renders the Hebrew words: — Sj'n (hi'knl, in a narrower sense the Holy Place) and n"3 (' house,' including lUkdl and dihir tj";, or Most Holy Place). Three Gr. words are tr.

'temple' in the NT: lepbv (more correctly the whole of the sacred enclosure), vabt (strictly the sanctuary or sacred ediHce alone, embracing hfhal an<l di'hir), olitot. i. SOLOUotrs Buildings.— TUe pile or series of edifices of which the Temple formed one part.o emiiraced in addition the king's house,j3 the porch of pillars,7 the throne porch, a the house for Pharaoh's daughter now married to Solomon, e the king's dwelling, and the Itaram. The following is d D -Q Q FIO. 1.

— fLAN OP BOTAX, BDILDWOS. 1. The preat court. 2. The 'other' ormiddle court 8. The inner (or temple) court. 4. House of Lebanon. 6. Porch of pillars. 6. Throne porch. 7. Royal palace. 8. Qaram. 9. Temple. 10. Altar. Stade'sf plan of the royal buildings as slightly simplified by Benzinger in his Heb. Arch, i; and in his Com. on Kings. 8 The above plan takes for granted that the pile of buildings formed a complete whole. There was one 'great court' (1) which surrounded the whole.

The ' other court ' (2) encompassed the king's palace i and hirnm ; k in 2 K 20'' it is called the ' middle court,' because it lay between the inner or temple court and the southernmost buildings (Lebanon house, etc.)

The 'inner court' X (3) was that which contained the temple and its belong- ings: 'inner' not in contrast with an outer court of the temple (of such a court Solomon's temple knows notliing), but as distinguished from the 'greater court,' which contained within it all the royal buildings. Apart from the description in 1 K .5-7, Kzk 43 /i makes it exceedingly likely that the whole of these buildings were together, making one whole. On the other hand, TheniuB, Furrer.

f and others place the temple on the eoat hill, but the other royal buikiinj,'« on the inodt-rn Mount Zion and the haram hill, between which two « But to the author, or at all events the editor, of even Kings the temple was the principal building of the ((roup, if not the llnal cause of the whole. 0 1 K 72 ' House of the forest of Lebanon,' so called on account of the cedar wood used in its construction and the piles upon which it rested. J. D. Michaelis, Dathe, Iken {Dissert. I'hiiolog. i.

diss.), and Hamelsfeld {Bihl. Geofj. i. p. 3:18) hold that the house in Question was a summer residence for kintf Solomon built on Lebanon or at the foot of it. Dathe refers for support to 1 K 91", 2 Ch 8». But the fact that Solomon deposited the golden shields in the house (see 91") shows that the house was close to Jerusalem. Besides, we never read of Solomon's having more than one palace. V 1 K 70. » 1 K T». 1 1 K 7». C Oach. I. 316. fl p. '.'3B. « p. 20. , 1 K 71" '»■ » 1 K -8. * 1 K 030.

/M 'They (the children of Israel) shall no more defile my nome . . In their setting of their thresholds by my thresholds, and their poste by my posts, and the walls between me and them.' t On A'tn^f ; see his plan, Tafol L E Schcnkel, ill f. 222 0. e96 TEMPLE TEJIPLE hills the TyropcBon valley is situated. But the references we have are wholly opposed to this, as is also the probabilitj' that the kin^ woulii liiive his palace erected in closer proximity to the royal sanctuary.

In 1 K 6'^*- we read of the biiildint; of the temple. V.^" tells us of an inner court, meaning clearly the court which enclosed the temple area and was itself included in the great court, a which had in it the whole complex of royal huihlings, sacred and secular. The i>:issage in Ezekiel/3 already noted makes this arran!_'ement still more likely. The eastern hill on which the royal buildings were erected is that which is known in the O T as ZiON and also as MoriaH. Tlie modern fiction, which h.

xes Zion on the hill west of the Cheese- mongers' ( = Tyropa;on) valley, has nothing to support it except tradition. It has against it topographical and historical considerations which are overwhelming.7 Had the buildings been ex- tended to a west hill, substructions of a deeper and more expensive character would have been necessary. Retatii'! positions of th» Royal Buildingt at Jerusalem.

— Assuiuini; that the roval buildings were all of thcni on the eastern hill, how were' they relatively situated? Tlie temple must have been either nortii or south of the other buildinjjs, as the distance between the Tyropceon and the eastern dechvities was too small to allow of its being on the east or west. It is exceedingly Ukely that it was on the north, and therefore on higher groiind. "From 2 K 1119, Jer 221 it follows that the way from the temple to the p.alace was a descent.

On the other hand, in 1 K 8' 9^, Jer 26") it is equally implied that it was an ascent from the palace to the temple. In these passages it is taken for granted that the temple waa in proximity to the other roval buildings. When Jeremiah was arrested for foretelling the destruction of the temple, the princes were at once upon the scene and constituted themselves into a body of magistrates to deal with the matter 5— an incident illustrating the closeness of their residences to the sanctuary.

Probably the southern wall of the temple w.as also the northern \vall of the ' other ' or ' middle ' court, a gate leading from one into the other. 1 , „ . It we can fix the position of the altar of burntoffenng, we can locate at once the main parts of the temple and also the other roval huildincs. There is good reason for believing that the sak'hra or rock under the dome of the mosque of Omar is the spot where the altar in question stood.

A very old tradi- tion connects with this spot the incident in which Abraham prepared to offer Isaac, as also the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite. It was on this threshing-tloor that the destroying angel stood when Jehovah stopped him in his work of destroying the people.? Even if these associations with the place are imaginary, yet thev show that it was a sacred spot from very primitive tiines, and in the consen-ative East there i« but little change in roads or towns or sanctuaries.

Solomon would be very likely to erect his chapel close to some spot where a Divine martifestation had been made or some altar had been raised. The form of the stone gives good reason for concluding that it was that on which the sacrifices were offered It is a huge limestone rock, measuring some 6U by 50 ft., standing above the marble pavement about 5 ft. On its top there is an opening, through which the blood of the victims sacrificed could pass.

Lower down there is an open cave in the same rock, at the bottom of which the stones make a hollow sound when struck. This, with other indications, makes it very probable that there was an opening at the bottom through which the blood passed, this opening leading into a subterranean passage which con- tinued its way to the Kidron Valley.

This agrees with what the Mishna Bays,r that under the alUr of burnt-oflering there was a conduit by means of which the blood of the victmi flowed into the valley of the Kidron. Close to the mkhra or rock there were formerly two fountains, one of them still sending up fresh and beautiful water. The natives say the water of this hist is ver>- putrid, but Pierotti tasted it and found they were wrong.

He was of opinion that the water had the name of being filthy on account of its long- time association with theeacrificial blood which mingled with its Nowacki thinks that, proliably, the sacriflcial blood after passing into the aperture at the bottom of the cave joined the waters of that 'fountain which flowed fast by the oracle ot God,' « and fell with them into the eastern valley. Joining ulti- mately the Kidron.

i The altar was rough and In Its natural stone, which meets the requirement ot Ex W^'-.u. that the altar should be either of earth or ot unhewn stone. Moreover, there were to be no steps going up to the altar,»— a condition also eatisDed by this rock. « 1 K 710. 12. S 438 „. , . y See art. Zios, Miihlau in Kichm', «. 'Zion,' and especially Outhe in .?;/>/'Kv. 27111. > Jer 26H'f- ■ Cf. Ezk 43". {23 24i»ir., 1 Ch 21ioff. (Oman). •: Yoma iii. 1. B Jerusalem Sxptored, London. 1864, vol. L 88ff.

■ Heb. Arch. ii. 41. « Is 8«. * Ct. Kzk 47»»- fi Belonging to the Book of the OovenanU > Ex 20«. supposing it to be the altar of Solomon's temple. This last U however, but twice named in Kings a and only once in Chron icle8;/5 in all these three instances the altar is described af brazen ; besides the size which the Chronicler gives,}- that is all we are told of the altar of burnt-ofiering of Solomon's temple. Nowack, indeed, completes the picture from the fuller descrip.

tion of Ezekiel's temple. 5 but with questionable Justification. It is likely enough that the adjective ' brazen ' is a later addition, and lliat the altar of the first temple was one of unhewn stone. If this stone liad not all along occupied a very important place in popular esteem, it could not have been tolerated, but it would many centuries before have been levelled to the ground.

Since the temple and its courts were arranged in terraces, th« house itself, together with the altar, must have stood on the highest platform : this is true of the ground on which the rock rests. Among leading authorities who have held that the altar was at the present sakhra, the following may be named :— Williams,! Tobler, Furrcr, Pierotti,? Stade,r Benzinger,li and Nowack.i Sir Charles Warren puts the altar just a little to the south of the rock, but quite close to it.

» If the saJchra marks the site of the altar,x the house must have been to the we8t,M the inner or temple court east, west, south, and north, wliile the remaining structures built on the hill would lie toward the south. In order to make the ^ock-cro^vned Moriah fit for building upon, the rocky surface would have to be levelled— the sakhra being left as it was — and the parts lower down raised to be as high as the rest.

Subterranean passages and rooms were erected, 'hewn stones,' 'costly stones,' 'great stones' being used, large quantities of earth being thrown in to iill up the intervening spaces.? There are to be seen at the present time remains of these underground buildings. 0 All agree that somewhere on the modem ^aram eth-Sher^ the temple was built ; but this area is a quadrangle ot unequal Bides- Its west side measures 1590 ft., its east 1525 ft. The north and south sides are 1036 and 921 ft.

respectively. It il impossible that the temple enclosure included the whole of thu space, though de VoguA, de Saulcy, Sir Henry James, and Sepp maintain that Herod's temple, «ith its courts and en- closures, did cover the Haram surface. German and French writers almost to a man, and the miijority of English and American authorities, unite in holding that the temple building proper stood west of the rock as advocated above, and that with Its adjuncts it covered about 600 ft.

east to west and 400 ft. north to south. , ^ „ A number of English writers have followed Fergussonr m maintaining that the temple occupied a square of some 600 ft. at the S.W. angle of the Haram (so Thrupp, Lewin,; and W. B. Smiths). Fergusson was led to this view by architectural con- siderations, and especi.allv by his acceptance ot the Mosque of Omar site for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. W. R.

Smith states succinctly what is to be said for this opinion, but there does not seem much inclination on the part of students ot the subject to accept it. Indeed, but for the necessity to support a foregone conclusion, Fergusson would hardly have hit upon this site for the temple at all. Sources.— Oui original sources for the history and description of Solomon's temple are threefold. (1) We have what is said in 1 K 6.

7, which leaves out much that is absolutely necessary to make a complete picture. Many teclinical terms are used, the meaning of which it is beyond our power to elucidate with any feeling of confidence. More- over, the text is exceedingly corrupt and defective, so that conjectural emendation and addition have to be constantly employed. Bottcher in hinAe/iren- Icse, Thenius in his Commentary, and especially Stade in his ZATlViii.

, have made praiseworthy attempts to supply the student with a correct text. (2) We have, further, the parallel history in 2 Ch 2'-5' ; but that the history in this book, however sincere and pious, is constructed from the point of • Viz. 1 K S! (in a narrative ot the dedication ot the temple) and 2 K IS""' (A has supplemented it by an altar Irom Damascus). 3 • Ch 41 V 20 cubits long by 20 cubits broad by 10 cubits high. rEzk43is.i7. , TAf Hofy City ^, p. 296 fl. { Op cit. 1 GMch. i. 314 a.

« KSnige, p. 2« I lUek Arch. IL 27 f. x Underqround Jemmlem, p. 60. AFig. l.'lO. ^ Fig. 1,9. 't^g-l.S. {IK 79 ' ; Jos. Ant. viii. iv. 8'2, etc. • See Warren's Umifrqround JeniMlem, p. 61 ff. _ » Essay on the ' Ancient Topography ol Jerusalem, 187. P Sketch ofJenisaUnn, 220 tf. ( Encyc. Brit.' «. ■ Temple.'

TEMPLE TEMPLE 697 view of a Jerusalem Levite of the time after the Exile, and represents events as tliey were regarded and not as they were, anj' one who compares Kings and Chronicles, and considers the history of religious thought and institutions among the Israelites, may see. Chronicles aims at glori- fj-ing David as the founder of the kingdom and of tlie religious society, especially of the priest- hood and the psalmody.

According to ihe Chronicler, David received from God a detailed plan of the temple, o and gathered together ma- terials, es])ecially gold, silver, copper, and iron.jS for the building. Kings gives a fuller account, but leaves out this and similar things.

(3) The temple of Ezekiel's vision 7 must have been more or less suggested by tlie temple which he actually saw ; and from its elaborate description one may, to a certain extent, fill in the omissions in the shorter description of Solomon's temple ; only, it is to be considered that the tem])le which the prophet saw on the banks of the Chebar is as sym- metrical as imagination unhampered by fact could make it. The te.xt of Ezekiel is also corrupt ; but ISottcher la his Piobcn Alttcst.

Schrifterklarung, the altar, the chambers, etc. This supposed con- nexion has led to many «Tong results as to the dimensions of the first temple ; as in the height of the building, which, because stated to be 30 cubits, i.e. thrice, not twice, that of the tabernacle, is made to refer to the exterior, not to the interior, though the otlier measurements are admitted to be internal.

l>iit the assumption of I'ergusson, based on the oldest authorities, falls to the ground when it is remembered that tlie tabernacle in question had no actual existence at any time, and no exist- ence in thought until about the time of the Exile. It would be far nearer the truth to say that the tabernacle is itself modelled upon the second temple, than to say that the lirst temple waa modelled on the tabernacle. See T.aeeknacle.

Tlie temple of Solomon included the house and the court which surrounded and enclosed house, altar, and other belongings. The ' house ' was a rectangular building 60 cubits long (east to west), 20 cubits broad, and 30 cubits high. a These are inside measurements, as the account of the dcbir, or Holy of Holies, in 1 K G'"* (cf. vj") shows, and as the temple of Ezekiel I, 14 If la ao I I ' I _1_ _1_ _1_ _L, _U _i- -J CubiW pro. 2. — OROUND PLAN OP B01.0M0S'B TEMPLII.

BkndJ-BoazandJachin— theplllura. P = the porch. H = the MiiiJ or Holy Place. D = the Altr or Moat Holy Place, table of flhewhread. 8 = the stairway to the upper chambers. ~ Ezukiel's temple. E=entraDCe to the chambers. 1, 2, etc. T=the the chambera after Smend, Bertholet, and especially Cornill, in their Commentaries, have done much to obviate this dif- ficulty.— We have secondary sources in Jo.

sephusS and tlieMishnic tract Middoth, but these are valu- able chiefly for Herod's temple ; for, even when describing the temples of Solomon, Ezekiel, and Zeruhbabel, it is Herod's which they have in mind. Josephus has also a strong passion for exaggera- tion, especially when the glory of the temple is concerned. In matters of size and measure- ment his imagination seems almost as free as was Ezekiel's. « 1. Plan and Dimensions of Solomon's Temple.

— Fergus-son f says that the temple of Solo- mon was a copy of the tabernacle, the dimensions of the latter being doubled, and such other chanires made as were necessary in a fixed as compared with a portable structure. But the resemblances so often, especially in former times, pointed out, are accom- p.inied by dilferences of an important character — as in the porch, the two pillars Boaz .tnd Jachin, • lCh28"l». /3 1Ch221^ rEzk 4U-«2 and In part 43 and 4fl. Ant. vill. HI., XV. xl. 3(1. ; BJ v.

v. 1-8. I See Robinaon's BRPt i. 277 f. ( Early Templet oj the Jem, p. 26 S. suggests. But no allowance is made for the wall separating the hekal, or Holy Place, from the diblr, which in Ezekiel's temple was 6 cubita thick./3 The building looked towards the east. It is of course quite po.ssible that this arrangement may have been due to the form of the hill, which made it much more suitable to build west to east than north to south. The .lanrtuary structure.

— The temple building had three jiarts, or rather two and a iiorch which is not reckoned as a portion of the house. The arrangeiiient and number of the chambers is con- jectural, being based on what we know of Ezekiel'* temple. The larger of the two parts of the house is the MkaZ,y the diblr S being the smaller. The hfhU • 1 K R3 1 2 Oh SS. The latter puaage doca not give the height. fi Ezk 416. y IlHul (Sj'.

i) is probably the eame b« the Accadlan ei;al, ' threat lioiiae,' as Scbrrwler, Haupt, and most Assyrinlopiste hold. Il niav mean properly a hall (AJSL, July IDDl, p. 244 (T.) See the Ojcf. Ilrb. Lrx. on the word. Though used in other eensee, ite cotniiioneat mcnninff Is that of the Iloly Place (E'li:), which is the later term. In this article h^kal has alwav's tliia mean- ing. d Di^W {yyi) la the term employed in Kings (or what In the paunllcl part* of Ohron.

la often called 'Holy of Holies' (^'jf 698 Tl.MPLE TEMPLE was an oblong rectangle 40 cubits from west to east, and 20 cubits from north to south. The deblr was a cube measuring 20 cubits in all three direc- tions. Since the whole house was 30 cubits high — the house (n'jri) including /u!mI and dcbir — there must have been 10 cubits of siiace-room on the top of the dcOir, this being used probably for storing purposes, though Ewald says it was inaccessible and empty.

Stieglitz and Griineisen view the d^ir as externally lower than the Mkdl by 10 cubits, but 1 K C- says the whole house had a height oJ SO cubit. Kurtz and Merx held that the hikdl had an inside height of 20 cubits only, and that on the top of the whole house there was an upper room, 60 cubits in length, for keeping the relics of the tabernacle. They say further that the Chronicler means this upper space by his ri'^lin (LXX to iTi/!i«»).

But bow could such an upper chamber be reached, and why do we never read about it or about the means of getting at it? The chambers about the house/S reached, taking the three storeys together, to 16 cubits. Above these were the windows ; > but there would be scant room for the windows between the roofs of the chambers and the ceiling word is said in Kings about the height of the porch, but in 2 Ch 3* it is said to be 120 cubits.

But such a structure would have been called a S'jjp (tower) and not a ch^x (porch). The propor- tions, 20, 10, 120, are impossible on both aesthetic and statical grounds. There is certainly a corrup- tion of the text, or we have another example — a gross one here — of the love of exaggeration to which the Chronicler is prone when describing the sanctu- ary and its worship.

It is most natural to think of the porch as having tlie same height as the house ; and it is not stated in 1 K 6, because that would be inferred by the reader. Walls. — There is no information given as to the thickness of the walls, but it must have been sub- stantial, because they had rebatements of a cubit, or at least of half a cubit, at each successive storey of chambers.o It could be diminished therefore by 2 cubits, or at least by one, without any material change in the appearance.

Ezekiel gives Cubits FIO. 3. — SECTION OF THB TEMPLE, NOETH TO SOUTH. Of the house if the latter were but 20 cubits above the floor. The Chronicler does not say where his n'vS;' were placed, and it is most probable that by them we are to understand the cy^s, or the chambers ranged along the three sides of the house. The. parrh. — In front of the house and continuous with it^ — the two, indeed, forming one building — "as the porch, S which was not considered a part of the house.

Its length,€ east to west, was 10 cubits ; its breadth, north to south, being the same as the breadth f of the house, viz. 20 cubits. Not a fi'S'"?!'")- Jerome connected the word with the Hebrew "12'! {diiher) 'to speak,' and followed the LXX j;iir,u«riirrr/>i»> in rendering it oracttlum {oraeuti sedei), it is really derived from the root I'm used in Arab., j J (V) 'to be behind." So d^r l.

jTi = what is behind ; that is, what lies to the west, the east being called CliJ, or what lies to the front. Just as the south is the right-hand side CyO') and the north the left-handed (SrfC^). DMr is the older term, and in the LXX of 1 Kings and in 2 Ch S" 420 68- 8 it is 8imj)ly transliterated 3«^i,> and J«(3v>. DtSbir occurs also in Ps 2S-, prob. also 2 K 102* (for Ty). « 2 Ch 8». fi See below. y 1 K 6«. ) dSk CtUam).

I In the or, length and breadth, when used of a sorfoce of the thickness of the walls of his temple as 0 cubits. /3 In 1 K 618 the cedar-covered walls are said to have figures carved on them of knops and open flowers ; but this verse isnot in the LXX, and it breaks in upon the account of the h^kdl in v.n and of the d^Mr in v.l9, besides repeating what has been said in v.ls. Probably this carving was the work of a later kin^, a later editor, by mistake, ascribing it to Solomon. Tet in v.

3fi the doors of both hPkdt and d^r are said to have been adorned with figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers ; and the verse is above suspicion. Hoofing. — Very little is told us concerning the roof of the house. 1 K 6'''7 is made by Uuhr, Keil, Thenius, in their Comm. and Treatises, as also by the Targ., Pesh., Vulg., and Arabic versions, to refer to the covering of the roof.

But Benzingei and the LXX take it to mean the covering or wainscotting of the walls ; and I KV S shows that the same verb certainly can be used of the walls, two dimensions, mean the greater and smaller measurement respectively. 1 K 6«. ^ Ezk 41». r' He covered the house with beams and planks of cedar.* ' And it (the throne porch) was covered with oedor (roa floor to floor.' TEMPLE TEMPLE 690 —which Thenius is inclined to deny, — and that it probably is so used in this passage.

Vet, as Thenius objects, the Avainscotting of the walls is described iu 6". V." is otherwise awkward iu its present position ; and it Ls hard to make out the exact meaning of the technical terms translated 'beams and planks.'o Probably the verse is an interpolation. 1 K G"^ in the EV has the word 'ceiling' in it. Instead of ' walls ' wo must read ' beams ' : 7 ' from the floor of the house unto the beams of the ceil- ing.'

We thus karn tliat the ceiling had cedar beams, but that is all we learn about it. But these beams must have been covered with stone, probably the hard limestone of which the walls were built, to protect the house from the rain. In the three most rainy months there descends as much rain in Jerusalem and its neigh- bourhood as the average rainfall upon any similar area in Great Britain throughout the year. Was the Tooi Jlat or yaiUformed''.

Most cer- tainly it was tlat, as all ancient temples and houses were, and as, with hardly an exception. Eastern houses continue to be up to the present time. The custom witli regard to private houses is to have a parapet all around the roof to prevent persons who are on the umcli-frequented roofs from falling.5 Certainly no other kind of roof than the flat one is hinted at anywhere in the Bible, nor is any other known in tlie primitive East.

It is remarkable to find leading Rabbinical writers, followed by Lun(i,f Hirt, Schniiase. Winer, and Thenius, plead that the roof was gabled. Hirt argues tliat there were spikes on the roof to keep otl'the birds, and that the roof was overlaid with gold. But he gets these, as perhaps also his gable roof, from the tem]ile of Herod. f Inner supports or r^t f — It is uncertain whether inside the house theiV; were pillars to bear up the roof.

In the hckal, at all events, it is very likely there were such supports, as the walls were 30 cubits high, and a roof of wood and of stone would be in great danger of tumbiin" unless there were something besides the walls to keep it up. Fergu8son»j ar^es for euch pillars, and he thinks there would be eight in all, four on each side of the house, one be- tween each couple of tables and latnpstands.

ff Surli an ar- rangement would, he thinks, promote at once arcliitectural effect and the stability of the structure. He refers to 1 K iili-,i but the word rendered pillars x means 'support,* and the parallel word in Chron.X means ' hii,'hways,' though it is rendere<! in EV ' terraces.' There is so nmch doubt as to what is meant that the passage cannot be mode to carry what is put upon it.

The material of which the house and its ap- pendages were built was the white hard limestone which abounds in the country, and which can be polished like marble ; indeed it is a kind of marble. The slabs used were pre|)ared at the quarry before they were brought to the temple, so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the bouse while it was in build- ing.^ The inside walla of the house were, as seen before, overlaid with cedar planks,!/ on which were • O'?:, nii-j'.

^ * And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, from the door of the bouse unto the walls of the ceiliny.' y nn-p for nn"p with LXX, Then., Keil, Bahr, Stade, Bern., and II 2 Uh 3'. i Dt ■Ji:\ J),' lOfJ. 1 2SI (or 324). { See art. Pinnacle. »i TfiiiiiUg uf the Jewg, p. '.y f. C On the tables and lamjistands of the hikal see below under 'Contents of hl'kdt.' t ' And the king made of the almug trees jn7/ar« for the house of Jehovah, and tor the king's house.' » 1VP?.

A 2 Ch 9" n'lVpp. M 1 K 0'. Ewald (Gesch. lii. 324, n. 2), Sta<le (ZATW 111. 13fi), and Benzinpcr (Coin, in ioc.) doubt the genuineness of this verse. It comes into the middi* o^ the account of the side ohomhera (see art. QuiKBY), I 1 K 61l>. carved 'knops' and 'open flo\vers.' As to the gold said to cover the inside of the house,a see below under ' The gold covering of Solomon's temple' (p. 700'').

The floor of the house was probably made of hewn stone of the same material as that of the walls. But this stone floor was covered with cypress /3 wood, as the walls were with cedar; so tliat nowhere inside could the stone be seen. Chambers surrounding the, Iiouse.y — In every side of the house excejjt the east there were chambers 5 arranged in three storeys. They did not go around the porch, as Griineisen said, for the house only is mentioned ; nor were there any on the east.

We are not told how thick the walls of these chambers were, how many in number the chambers were, nor is anything said of their arrangement. For such details and others see EZEKIEL'S Temple, below. Similar side rooms have been discovered at Birs Nimroud.e The beams on which the upper storeys were constructed — made, no doubt, of cedar wood — rested upon rebatements in the temple wall, so as to prevent the wall from being built into — the house being too sacred for that.

f The temple wall so built would therefore, at the roof of the first chambers, according to most writers, receile half a cubit, and at the roof of the next row of chambers it would recede another half cubit. The opposite wall — that built specially for the chambers — had a corresponding rebatement. So Keil, Stade, Now., Benz., and most; and at least symmetry is secured by this arrangement.

Theniusi) and others think tiie whole rebatement of one cubit at each storey took place in tlie house wall, and it seems to the present writer that this is likeliest, as not a word is written about rebate- ments in the chamber wall. The chambers on the ground were 5 cubits broad, those on the middle storey being 6, while tliose on the top storey were 7 cubits broad. The chambers were entered from the court on the south side through a doorfi (Fig. 2, E).

In Ezekiel's temple there were entrances on the north as well as on the south. From the lowest storey one ascended to the others by means of a ladder and trap -door, and not, as used to be thought, by means of a winding stair : of such winding stairs the ancient East was quite ignorant.t The history is silent as to whether or not there were windows in these chambers. I'robably, however, there were, and thej' would be of the same kind as those of the house. See below concerning these.

The chambers seem to have been used for the storing of the furniture, vessels, and other things belonging to the temple. In them, too, were placed some relics of the wilderness worsliii).\ 1 K S, however, has many signs of having been tampered with. Of ' Levites ' as distinct from ' priests,' Kings knows nothing. Nor does Kings show acquaintance with any tent besides that built by David for the ark.,u 'Tent of meeting,' v if genuine, must have the sense it bears in JE (E.'

i 33', Nu ll'» l^") and not in P. Windows. — There were no windows in the • 1 K 621. 3c»i-9 1 K 8'»; not'flr,'a8 EV. >. 1 K 6». ' i'ls; (p«V,' i-y;) should be read with LXX, Bdtt., Now , Benz., etc., J'^i'. The word occurs in no other place. If re- tained it COD but mean 'storey,' lit. what is spread out(y:i'- I Fergusflon, Ilittvry of Architecture. C 1 K 6. B .See his diaurnm. Tafel ii. figs. 2 and 6 (at the end of Oom.

X e 1 K i;' oorreeting ' middle —llrst occurrence — to 'lowest, with LXX, Targ., and nearly all writers. See Stade, /.ATW UL 13611. •IK 7" Ij ■> Ch 5'. X I K 8<, 2 Ch &i>. M 1 K liX 22S-30, of. i 8 tV. 700 TEMPLE TEMPLE teiaple as the term 'windows is now umk-i stood. In Bible times glass was not used for what are called windows ; nor is it so used at the jiresont time in Eastern countries.

Indeed the main pur- pose of the apertures translated ' windows is to let impure air out and pure in, rather than to give li.'ht to the house.a Considering the thickness ot^ the walls— 6 cubits, or say 9 ft., m Lzekie s temiile— it would have been difficult for the light to enter. In most Eastern houses tlie lamps are kept burning night and day ; it is by tlieni that tlie house is ligliled. This was true probably of the temple as well. In 1 K 0» the windows are described as '''['^f^/-!""'

^ Eastern »-indow6 are -and OtamfU : y i.e., bes.duh the lattu-ea covering, there were beams used to protect the opening and to ?on^ the'framework of the window. Vanous "'^er reconstruc- tions of the windows have been suggested. The Targ., t-ebh "everal Rabbinical writers. Luther, "nd othere have renderi-d • windows broad within S and narrow . without.' Keil explains .T^" indowswith closed beams'; '•«• «-h°»'; 1''"'<^",'=»'X' ^J ^ned or closed at pleasure, as the •""'«% "'""^^^Xr Windows could.

; For a statement and examination of other "ews see the Comm. of Thenius and Keil, and especiaUy Keil's valuable treatise on Solomon's temple. We know nothing about the size of the windows, nor is it stated in what part of the walls they were made. The chambers surrounding tlie house reached a height of 15 cubits— 5 cubits being the height of each, if we are to infer from Ezekiel s temple.

If, therefore, the windows of the house looked directly to the outside, they must have been some 20 cubits from the ground. It is prob- able that the chambers had windows as well ; and in that case the house windows might have looked immediately opposite to those of the chambers, and have been put in three parallel rows. This is quite possible, as we are not told the number or the position of the windows. There was perhaps a row of windows above the chambers as weU.

It is generally thought that there were no ^N-indows in the dchir, and 1 K 8",, has been advanced to prove this. The difficulty of having windows between the uppermost roof of the cham- bers and the ceiling of the deblr is pointed out. But this difficulty is not insuperable, for, assuming the chambers, between them, to reach a height of 15 cubits, there would still be a space above of several cubits for the windows.

If, however, the windows of the house looked immediately ujion those of the chambers, the difficulty in question disappears. , , „ i,- Doors.— Both. Mkdl and diUr had doors.* We are not told what size they were, but in Ezekiel s temple they were 10 and 6 cubits broad respoc- tively.i How high they were is not said. 1 he hekal door was square./c while that of the dcijir •was pentagonal. X The door of the hekal was .|^^l^, lit. 'a perforated Bpace," '» bole,' from S^IJ-'to pierce or perforate.'

,3 D'SES, lit 'shut.' The Arabic word for such window* U thtiiibdk. y D'cpv'— prob. pass. ptcp. of denom. verb. There i» no need to alter' the vowels as Benzingcr does, reading D'?iJ^ 'beams.' » D'cr^— fluch as could be seen through ; of. I'P^f'n 'to look at from an eminence.' ,0-l?eN,Ut.'shut.' C2KlS",Dn6».

■ Jetovah has said that he would dwell in the thick dark- ness ' Cf Ps 18" ' He made darkness his hiding-place, his pavilion round about him ; darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.' 81K631M. <Ezk41«-. «1 K «33, reading, as LXX, Vulg., Then., and Ben*., nijlf niyzi ' beams made into a square.' A It is better so to understand n'O'cq In 1 K 6»l. Oes. (Tha. 1 42 fl), Keil, Bahr, Then., and liott.

take the numerals in 1 K 6»i- S3 to denote some fraction of either the width of the wall— Oes Keil, and B.ihr— or of the entrance wall (J.imbs, posts), as Then, and Bottchcr. But no writer would choose this way of expressing this idea. It ta far better, with the Rabbis, Stade (ZATWm. p. 148), and Benzinger, to understand the words as above. made of cypress wood, its posts being of olive wood. The door of the d'Mr was of olive w-ood.

Both doors were divided into two liorizontal halves j but the two leaves thus formed were in the case of the hekal door further divided vertically, eacli into two folds, which were joined by hinges. It was not therefore needful to open the whole leal in order to enter the hekal. Tlie dihir door bad two leaves only without the subdivisions, because it was not opened and shut as was the outer door, but was always kept open according to Keil,a though lie says the veil kept the interior hidden.

See, however, below, ami also Veil. , Ezekiel's temple had the same construction for the Mkcd and dilnr doors, viz. that which seems to have obtained for the htkcd door alone in Solomon's temple. /3 This is the more atrikmg. F18. 4.— AK KOVPTIAN TOLDlNa DOOE, SHOWISO VERTIOAI. DrTI8I0».» as the idea of sanctity is more .^trktly recognized in Ezekiels temple.

Not at all improbably the inner door of Solomon's temple was constructed exactly like the other, though this is not stated owing to an oversight of the writer. Upon both doors were carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers ;« but there is no reliable evidence that the walls had such figures on them (see W alls ). In 2 Ch S" it is said there was a veil before the door of the d»ir.S>rresponding to that of the tobernacle.. In Zendv babeis temple there was such a veil,; and "' "" 'Di'^^.

h ,B L-ave rise to the veil of the Ubemaole.and caused the ChroniLlL-r to transfer it to the first temple ; but Kings says nothing about I though Thenius. approvef by Riehn,., b^f^ '"e word .n.« 1 K 621 by arbitrarily altenng a verj- dirt.cult text , the tej? '»• however, probably an interpolation, as Stade,« -Now.,, and othera ho^d! •The veil ias an invention of the time when the sacred hwl to be more rigidly separated from the pro ane.

It waj qSle%i1b"°ntroduci into the pre-exilic temp e afur Solo, mons time, Uiough of that we know nothing defimtely.. The. qold covering of Solomon's temple. —The following parts of the temple are said to have been overlaid with gold: (1) the walls of the dehr;\ (2) the walls of the hekal ; /i (3) the floor of the whole house ;► (4) the altar before ^^e deblr [but the support for this-1 K G-'^O-is not to be found in the XX.

X, and it shows otherwise strong marks of being an interpolation, lar better wii Stade « and Benzinger omit the clause. With it goes the puzzle of knowing what is meant by the ' altar belonging to the diOir.' Ue 9* speaks of an ; Se'r JTd^w'aM have held that the two leaves of the WW door were diWded horiwntally only. But the epithet D' , , ;, •going around each other '-supports the first view ; which H that .Tetended by Thenius, KeU Komm.), and B™?"^^^ J 1 K t-Ti S5 I Ex 2831lr-.

{ see vwfc ,7/irB21627«. eZATWillp.U^. Je" ^rcA. IL 81. See Veil, and <•( jABUUiaou i 1 K bS) ^ 1 K C2if- II 2 Ch 8«- ,1K630; '|Z.12'H'iiJ.146 TEMPLE TEMPLE 701 altar a belonging to the d'jbir^ but this error arises from the above interpolated clause rightly rejected by Stade and Benzinger] ; (5) the chenibim ; ^ (6) the leaves of the door. 7 It is probable that the statement about Riding is a late adcUtioD in all the above instances, and that, in Solomon's temple, it had no place.

It is sig-niflcant that in every one o( the passages in question there are other indications wiiich awoken suspicion (for details consult Stade, ZATM' iii. UOfF.X When Shishak, klnc of Efjx'pt, attacked and conquered Jerusalem, he took away ihe treasures of both temple and palace : tlie (golden shields are distinctly named, but not a word occurs about the gold of the walls, etc.

2 Jehoash, king of Israel, overcame the king of Judah, and took from Jerusalem the t'old and silver and the temple vessels, but nothing is said about his strippinL.' walls, etc., of the gold that covered them.i Similarly, Ahaz in his extremity took the oxen on which the brazen sea rested, and also other tUing8(2 K lb* I'O. One would expect to read of his purloining the gold that was so conspicuous it it covered walls, doors, inner altar, cherubim, and even floors.

^\Tien Hezekiah stripped the doors and pillars of the temple, in order to make a present to the kingof Assyria (2 K ISi^r.), nothing is written about there bcin;^' anv gold given, though of course this is not denied either. 'Gold* in the EV, as the italics indicate, is not in the Hebrew.— Ezekiel's temple does not appear to have had any of this gold-overlaying. In short, apart from the suspicious reference named, we have no allusion in the subsequent history to this gold covering.

In post-exilic times the wealth of Solomon was greatly exaggerated. Just oa his wisdom and power were, among Arabs as well as Hebrews, in yet later days. It was felt by those who made the additions re gold that Solomon's exalted character demanded them. Besides, the P tabernacle was pictured as plentifully supplied with gold : this would atTor^l a strong motive for making gold more con- spicuous in Solomon's temple. 2. The Pattern or Style of Architecture