Chapter

II

The Jerusalem Temple in lts Ancient Near Eastern Context

I-awrence T. Geraty
hen David gave Solomon his son... the pattern ftabnt]of everything that came to him by the Spirit [rtla]" (L Chr 28:11'-72).' Israel's "national shrine was constructed on a Canaanite pattern."' The juxtaposition of these two statements, representative of "traditional" uod ".iitirul" points of view on the origin of ihe Jerusalem temple,3 poses an issue of great interest to those studying the biblical concept of tonement. The Bible itself indicates that the Israelites sought the help of the nearby Canaanites when it came time to build the temple-undoubtedly because the Israelites had had little architectural experience. Thus theie is no question about the probability of borrowing from the Canaanites.4 The iisue concerns the extent of the cultural borrowing and its significance. I propose to look first at the biblical data nd then compare them with the archaeological record of Israel's neighbors.

Author's translation. The RSV rendcring, "all that he had in mlnd" is missing the point becuse the term for spirit (ra) is not used of humans but lways of God by the-chfoniclef (cf' L. Khler, old Testameni Theologt [Philadelphia: westminister, 79571, pp. 111-19). Furtheand. Prophets, p. 751:

)
-1

John

Bright,l lIistory of lvael2nd ed.,p.222, Frank B.'Holbrook, ;'Tire Israclite Sanciuary" discusses the origin and mcaning of the Mosaic tabernacle which continued in use, in som io.m, until the building of the Jerusalem temple in the tenth century B,C. My chapter, though written indcpenden-tly, may bc seen as complementary to Holbroo<'s much-morC complcte study; I raise in a different contcxt some of the same issucs with which he deals.
r fus5:18; 7:73-14.

inspiration."'Se aiso Id., Spirual Gi, 4:94,113, 155; ld., Desire o f Ages, p. 1 93; Id., C hrt's O bi ect Less ons, p. 349'

19 makes it clear that ivine inspirtion is involved. Cf. Ellen G. White, in Patrarchs ,'David gave Solomon minute directions for building the temple' with patterns ofe,rery part, and of alfits instruments of service, as had becn rcvealcd to him by divine

ror", u"rr"

hopheu and Kngs, p' 66;ld', The

5t

llltt Jlual-tll

IrtrPr{J llr rL f1-lru.tllL l(r1 !)aLUrll wrlrv

Biblcal Data
when David established Jerusarem as his capital and brought the ark to a tent he had pitched for ir (2 sam 6:17), he fully intended io house it ln a permanent structure. But Nathan told him that ever since the Exodus God had been content with a tent (2 sam 7:r-17);furthermore, Davicl had been involved in too much bloodshed (1 chr 2z:g).Bound by the prohibition, David could do no more than build an altar on the futuie temple site gftgr purchasing the_ threshing floor of Araunah (ornan) the Jbusite (2 sam 24:24-25; I chr 2r:2&-22:r;2 chr 3:1). Davd contnued to make preparations for the building of the temple (2 sam 7:2; r Kgs 5:3; 1 chr 22:2.-5, but it was solomon who aciual supervised its;onstruction, .14-76), beginning in the fourth year of his reign, 4g0 iears after the Exodus (1 Kgs 6:1). At David's death, when ail was i apparent readiness for the uutairg project, it would be surprising for solomon to wait another four years to initiate i1..very possibly, then, this reference to Solomon's fouith year refers with David, the first year of his sore reign prouuty 19 r "9l"gency
being 970 8.C.5
Because of solomon's need and David's past relationship with Hiram (Huram), king of ryre, it was natural for solomon to call n Hiram for workmen and materials, especially for cedar and cypress wood. If the transmission of the numbers is correct, solomon ,ent-30,000 forced Israelite

laborers to Lebanon and within Israel used 153,300 (153,600 according to Chronicles) aliens-70,000 burden bearers, 80,000 stone quarriers, and 3,300 work supervisors. The result of all this work is best described in 1 Kings 5-7. This passage may be compared with 2 Chronicles Z-4,which is dependent on 1 Kings to a certain extent at least. Besides these key passages, there are many other scattered references to the temple in the OT To the extent that Ezekiel's

A_A
Cross-section Plan of tho Templo

Fig.

Solomon's citadel based on Ku rt Galling, B ib lis c he s Reallikon, cols. 4l l-412 (1937), reproduced from
Andr Parrot, The Tmple of lenualem, p.20.

l. Sketch plan of

'

tV
Longitudinal section

O t0 20

30 cub'r

Restoration of the lront ol the Tomple

Fig.2 Suggested reconstruction of Solomon's temple based on Carl Watzinger,Denlonliler Paltstinas, vol. 2 (1935), reproduced from S. M. Paul and W G. Dever,BiblicalArchoelogt,
p-72.

*c/tPol
,r'
5
4r

This is the unpublished suggestion of m-y colleague, william H. shea. For a view favoring David and Solomon's coregency but without folloi_n through on its implicationior Juting the temple, see E. Ball, "The Co-Regencyof David and soiorn"n xi"p,ili; l.ziii]_w.Cf. M. B. Rowron' 'Thc Dare of re Funding of Soromon's Tempre n'son l 1t6si, zo-zz. ,r

jt

temple, seen in a vision of the future (Ezek. 40-46), was patterned after the recently destroyed Solomonic temple, its description, too, may be helpful. The Jerusalem temple was part of the royal citadel that Solomon constructed north of the Ophel hill. Space does not permit a description of these official residences and public buildings, but figure 1 is one possible reconstruction. The temple precincts maywell have rested on a level platform as does the Haram esh-Sharif today (in the southeast quadrant of Jerusalem). In
39

38

1887 Charles Warren observed a straight join in the masonry of the southeastern corner of the temple platform and suggested it to be the

demarcation between Herodian and Persian masonry.6 Kathleen Kenyon has suggested that this join may represent the southeastern corner of the original temple precinct. / If she is correct, this is all that is left of it archaeologically. The temple precinct contained at least two courts (2 Kgs 23:12)-a "great court" (2 Chr 4:9), to which every worshiper had access, and an "inner court," "court of the priests," or "upper court" (1 Kgs 6:36;2 Chr

Fig.4. Ground plan and reconstruction of Solomon's temple after W. Corswant, D ic tion naire d' arc h ologie
biblque (1956), reproduced ftomIDB, vol. R-2, p.537.

Fig.5.Ground plan of
Solomon's temple after

Davies (1,902), based on Stade (1887), reproduced

from IDB, vol. R-2, p. 536.

#
Fig-

4:9; Jer 36:10), which was mainly for the priests and Levites. Although the wall of the inner court is described (1 Kgs 6:36), nothing is known of the wall of the outer court. Six gates are mentioned (2 Kgs 15:35; 1 Chr 9:18; 26:16; Jer 20:2;26:1,0;36:10), but their exact locations are unknown. The temple itself was a rectangular building, perhaps situated on its
6 7

I.Vf y9lt..?'3 (1956): (1) ground plan, !: secuon; srde vlew;

(4)

3. Reconstruction of solomon's templc by L.-H. vincent and A-M. steve,rnualem

1z tongitudinal cross secrion; 13) breadth cross and (5) front view. Reproduced from.sDl Bible Diitonary, p. 7a.

K. Kenyon, Diging up Imnalem (New York, 1974), p. 111,. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the OI(New York, l97l),pp.3940;ld., "New Evidcnce on Solomon's Temple," MUSJ 46 (1970):1,3949.

40

41

lllc Jluallll

.tlrrPru llr lL f uvrvr \vu^

accepted ones are reproduced in figures 2-8 to facilitate comparisons.

(Ezek +O:lS) because the whole structure was on a platform. There is no ention of sieps (or doors) in the Kings/Chronicles description -The Tlm evidently funcioned as the narthex does in churches today-a kind of entranc hal 20 cubits wide, corresponding to the width of the rest of the structure, and 10 cubits deep. Although 1 Kings does not specifically mention its height, possibly because as a porch it had no toof,ZChronicles 3:4 gives its height s 120 cubits (wrich apparently is a copyist's error [the NIV gives its height as 20 cubitsl).v A striking feature of the EIdm was its pair of 18 cubic high bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15). Jachin on the south and Boaz on the north, each with itr o*n'o.nate 5 cubic high capital. Their circumference was 12 cubits and rhey were hollow (Jer 52:27). The Chronicler's (2 Chr 3:15) height for the columns of 35 plus 5 cubits is apparently a copyist's error. There has been on the meaning of the names though no consensus has :t:tJaT"ussion

On" upproached the Ebm in Ezekiel's temple via a flight of

steps

'f#''^

Fig' 6. suggested reconstruction of soromon's tempre T A Busink, Der Tmper von (1970), reproduced from orhmar Keet,ihe 1fte1 sy^,rc* orn-bnrwora,
p,.

own platform if Ezekiel 41:g reflects a detail that went unmentioned in Kings and chronicres. Ezekie|s tempre crearry faced east 1rt s, r o; t r , r ; 43:1-4; 44:1-3),so it is reasonable to ssume that solomon t oi also. Going lrom east to west, the.pran of the building consisted of an EIrm (variousry iranslated "vestibule," "porch," ,,entrane hall," ,,portico," und the like), !fko!.(.f!optace,'li.m'ain,oo,n,",,nuul,,'_"..r.), i"iuaiLti(,MosrHoly Place," "Holy of Holies," "inner sanctuary" ,,aos,', ,,cella,), ,,ad51um,,, :tc.). The measurements of these units ai given i the ':oy.1l" cubit, equal to about 20-6 inches, ""uiir,'possibry oppose to he shorter oas 'ordinary" cubit and the longer ,,long,, cubit." several plans have been reconstrricted by schorars. some of the better_
RB.Y. Scort, ."The Hebrew Cvbit,,' JBL 77 (1,95g):205_Zl4 discusses rhe euidence.

Fig. 7. The Stevens reconstruction (1955) of the Solomonic temple, as drawn from specifications prepared by V{ E Albright and G. E. Wright, reproduced from Othmar Keel,The Symbolm of the Biblical ll/orlQ p. 155.

"Original m ay have read2} cubits, for which there is some evidence in the versions [as in the NTV]; mEh maybe a corruption of the term for cubit." J. M.Myers, II Chroncles (Gatden City, NY,
l96s), p.
16.

10 Representative of
(1,953): 43o-39;

J. Ouellette, "[ vestibule du temple dc Salomon tait-il un bt hilni?" RB 76 (1969): 375-78; and H. G. May, "Thc TWo Pillars Before the Temple of Solomon," BISOR 88 (1,942): 19-27.

a r"ast literatue on the subject arc A. Audin, "ls piliers jum eaux," ArOr 21, lV. Kornfeld, "Der S)'rnbolismus der Tcmpelsule," ZAW 74 (1962): 50-57;

42

43

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context decoration was the same as the hl<nl, although there is no mention of any window. But Yahweh had declared that He would dwell in darkness (r Kgs

The size of the temple proper was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. It was divided into the outer hkTI and the inner debr jtst as in the wilderness tabernacle. Here, however, the compartments were twice the size of the rooms in the tabernacle, though they retained the same proportion of one to two. Entrance from the EMm to the 40 cubit longhkalwas through double cypress wood doors, each door divided into two folding leaves decorated with carving and gold. The interiorwallswere covered with wainscoting of cedar carved in the form of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, all overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:35). The floor was covered with cypress boards and gold. Windows in the upper part of the walls lighted the room; however, there is no indication of their number or placement. Furnishings inside the hkrl are mentioned only briefly. The ones of gold included the cedar altar (for incense) standing before the debr-perhaps the altar mentioned in Isaiah 6:6 and the "table" of Ezekiel 4l:22; the tables for the bread of the presence (1 Chr 28:1.6;2 Chr 4:19), and ten lampstands arranged before the debr, five on the south side and five on the north. Smaller objects of gold, such as lamps, tongs, cups, snuffers, dishes, pans, and door sockets, are also mentioned. Chains of gold on gold-covered olivewood doors (2 Chr 3:14 mentions a veil) separated the hkal from the deb6 whichwas a perfect cube of 20 cubits in length, breadth, and height" Whether its ceiling was 10 cubits lower than the hkal or whether thedebr was elevated and reached by more steps is not mentioned. Isaiah 6:1 might hint at the latter. Its interior
NORTH

Fig.8. Plan of Ezekiel's temple after I. Benzinger, Hebrische Archaologie (1927 ), reproduced from Andr Parrot, The Temple of
lerwalem. p.62.

8:12); therefore, over the symbol of the ark of the covenant from the tabernacle He was present in this mysterious chamber. over the ark stood two cherubim of olive wood plated with gold, each 10 cubits high. The wing span of each was also 10 cubits, so together they stretched from wall to wall. Nothing is said about the roof of the temple, but most probably it was flat. Around the outside of the temple on the north, west, and south were attached three-storied yuqa' and ela't ("side chambers," "annexes," "galleries," etc.). The first story was 5 cubits wide; the second story, 6; and the third story, 7. Each story was 5 cubits high. offsets in the temple walls accommodated the increasingwidths of the stories; therefore, no supporting beams protruded into the main walls. The entrance to thes side structures was on the south (1 Kgs 6:8), but in Ezekiel's temple (where they were divided into 90 rooms, 30 to each story) they could be entered from both sides (Ezek 41:5-6). The upper stories were reachedby llm ("stairs, " "apertures"). The temple faced the inner court, which was fenced about with three courses of hewn stones and one course of cedar beams-a building technique typical of the ancient Near East.ll The court was not empty. A bronze altar of sacrifice is taken for granted in 1 Kings B:22, 64;9:25; 2 Kings 1"6:74-15, but specifically described in 2 chronicres 4:1. Its dimensions were 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high, and it probablywas intended to supersede the one David had built there earlier. Ezekiel's altar of burnt reached by steps, had different dimensions: 20 x 11 (MT) or 12 9-ffering, (LXX) cubits (Ezek 43:L3-17). The exact site of the altar is noi indicated, although it may have been associated somehow with the bare rock now under the Dome of the Rock-an area Solomon consecrated for sacrifices when the altar itself proved too small to handle all the sacrifices at the temple's dedication (1 Kgs 8:64). Also within the court to the southeast of the 'nldm, stood a bronze "molten sea,." a huge decorated laver 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and 30 cubits in circumference, holding 2,000 baths (3,000 baths in 2 chronicles 4:5).12 It rested on lz bron?e bulls arrangd in groups of
s. smith, "Timber and Brick o Masonry construction ," pqe e9a\:5-17; H. Frankfort, The Art and A rc h i tec tu re of t he,4nc ien t Orieni lBal timore, lg S4), p-, 72 A bath was eqral to about five and one-half gallons; see R.B.y. scott, ,,weights and Measures of
11

i6g.'

the Bible,"

Bl

22 (1959):22-32.

44

/t<

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

its completion was opposed and delayed until515 B.c. during the reign of Darius. Again wood was brought from Lebanon and precious metals were used for decoration. Some of the original vessels taken by Nebuchad nezzar were returned to the new temple, but the Most Holy place remained vacant of furniture or equipment. In the hkal stood a golden altar of incense, a table for the shewbread, and a seven-branched lampstand. The plan-and furnishings were basically similar to those of solomn's temple, !ut the magnificence of the first temple was not reproduced in the second. It did last longer, however-until the reign Herod who, inspired by ^of ambition, reconstructed it in grandiose style.2o In spite of the detailed descriptive information the Bible gives concerning the Jerusalem temple, its reconstruction, in many r"spects at least, is still a matter of conjecture, especially since no part f it iemains. The only fruitful sources to assist us in reconstructionre the archaeological remains of temples in Palestine and her neighbors-particularly in orie of those neighbors, Phoenicia.(whose traditions *"re influenceo by both Egypt and Mesopotamia),2l who provided solomon with artisans and builders in the construction of Israel's temple. Do we find temples in the ancient Near East that correspond in any of their details to what we find described in the Bible?

three, each group facing one of the cardinal points of the compass. Ten smaller bronze lavers, each holding 40 baths and each resting on an ornate wagon, were arranged by fives on each side of the court. According to 2 Chronicles 4:5-6, the former was for the ablutions of the priests, and the latter were for washing the burnt offerings. Smaller bronze utensils required for the sacrificial rites are briefly listed: pots, shovels, and basins (1 Kgs 7:45). One other interesting item located in the court is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 6:12-13, described as a bronze platform 5 cubits square and 3 cubits high on which Solomon stood during the dedication ceremony. Perhaps it was there temporarily so that the king's voice would carry as far
as possible.

Such is the biblical description of Solomon's temple built for Yahweh,

a part of the complex of buildings that composed the royal citadel in

Jerusalem. It remained almost intact until 58 8.C., although its treasures were certainly plundered by both foreign (Shishak,13 Jehosh. of Israel,l4 NebuchadneLiarls_and native kings-(Asa for Ben-hadad,16 Joash of

Judah for Haza,|1 Ahu, for Tiglath-pil"r"r,18 and Hezekiah for Sennacherib).19 The temple served as a hiding place for Joash from the fury of Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3). From time to time repairs and additions were made to the temple. Ahaz installed a new altar of sacrifice patterned after one he had seen in Damascus but left the old one nearby (2 Kgs 16:10-16). Manasseh imported into the temple precinct several heathen altars and irnages (2 Kgs 21:3-7), which Josiah removed (2 Kgs 23). Eventually, the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sacking of Jerusalem, and most furnishings of value were taken as booty (2 Kgs 25:8-17; Jer 52:12-

Ancient Near Eastern Parallels

Because Egyptian temples were known to scholars even before the rise of archaeology, it was once customary to ascribe Egyptian influence to the Jerusalem temple. originally, the Egyptian temple was conceived as a house for the god, just as an Egyptian dwelling was ihe house of its master. It began as a single-room shrine, before which stood a symbol of the godthe whole enclosed in a low wall. As time went on, rooms and hallJwere added, and the shrine became the Holy of Holies, lying on the main axis of a great temple complex. There the sacred image was hiden from public view by a series of portals along the central passage, which ran from the en_trance through the pylon, back to the "great place," as the Egyptians called it. The simplicity of the earliest shrines argues against any elaborate interpretation of their significance, but as the temple became more
20 Josephus, 2't G. contenau,

The postexhilic Jerusalem temple was built with the permission of C.!rus. There is no detailed description of the second temple dating from the pre-Maccabean period, but scattered references provide us with a partial picture. According to the royal edict inEzra 6:3-4,it was to be 60 cubits wide and 60 cubits high (no length is mentioned), built with three courses of stone and one of timber. Although it was begun under Cf,rus,
13

23).

2K14:1,'l-1.4. 15 2 Kg 24:1.3;2Chr36:10 (first attack); 2 Kgs 25:8-17; Jer 52:12-23 (second attack).

t4

1 Kgs 14:7-5-26.

lrrt,

XY :xi; Wars, Y :v.

The phoeniciau

16 18

l7

1 Kgs 15:15-19,

2Kgs12:4-18.
2 Kgs 16:7-18.

))

([.ondon, 19 62), pp. 180-82. 8.g.,^8. B. Sn,t\lWntiay A1c-htegtyre.As Culwal Expression (New york, 1938), pp. 119_%;
J. Strong, Tlrc Tabemacle of Israel in the Desen (Grand Rapids, |SSZ, p.

La civilisation phnicienne (paris, 1949), pp. r40-s2; D. Harden,

1,9 2Kgs 18:15-16.

t,'

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern context

careful examination suggests that the correspondence is not too close. F'gyptian temples usually were spread over u lu.g" area behind a broad facade with a network of buildings surrounding th shrine prop"r, but the

Fig.9. Plan of Hathor

Seti
.4-

TmPle

of

Badawy,l History of EgtPtin Architecnre, p.271.

Medina, reproduced from

(1308-1290 B.C.) at Deir el

r
llH)1,1,
(

tf1t

0f n^rnor
D

complex the Egyptians began to picture it as a microcosm of the world, the realm of the god. Thus its ceiling was painted blue for the s and was studded with golden stars. Down the central axis flew successive representations of the vulture goddess, the shadow of whose wings protected the deity's shrine. The floor of the temple was conceived as the earth, out of whic plants grew, hence the lotus and papyrus columns. The Holy of Holies was regarded as the mound that first rose from the primeval waters, the hill where Ra first appeared out of chaos. The two pylon towers at the entrance were the hills of the horizon, between which the sun god rose' and later, the goddesses Isis and Nephthis, who lifted up the sun so that it could begin itJ journey. But this cosmological significance ascribed to the

o o o o

ooo ooo
ooo
oo o

temple Oi noi determine its form; the structure came first, and the inteipretation dealt with what already existed.23 The plans of two typical, developed Egyptian temples are reproduced
in figures 9 and 10. Th"r. are certain physical similarities to the temple of solomon, but
23 The preceding summary
147 -54.

is indebted to Harold H. Nclson, "The

ESptian Tcmplc," BIR

1 (1961):

Fig. 10. Restoredsectional bird'syeview,plan,andviewof thecourtofKhonsu trr (rte7-116s B.c.) ar Karnak, i"prooro rron' . b;;;;'ix*,y tempreof of Esp tian,4rchitecture, p. 256.
Ramses
AA

^o

The Jerusalem Temple n Its Ancient Near Eastern Context Jerusalem temple consisted of three rooms in a row, one behind the other, with a narrow front. There may be some connections in the symbolism, but they do not appear to be direct. With the riseof Assyriology, manyscholars have put forward Mesopotamian or Anatolian parallels and prototypes for the Jerusalem temple. This effort has seemed plausiblebecause of common terminology. Hebrew Etam is linguistically related to Akkadian ellamu, meaning "front"; and Hebrew hkdl is related to Akkadiankallu, "palace," which is derived from Sumerian E-GAL, meaning "large house." The Mesopotamian temple seems to have had its origin as a dwelling place for the god. Ear Sumerian temples took the form of a rectangle, with the entrance in one of the long sides near one end. The god's image was on a podium in a niche at the far end of the room. Usually this temple style is referred to as having a "bent-axis" approach, because access to the deity was indirect. Inside there was a hearth in the center of the room, and benches bearing statues of worshipers were placed along the sides of the room. Low pillars in front of the statute of the deity may have been used to support some sort of curtain or veil. Furniture for the god's use was sometimes kept in an adjoining room. Eventually, a typical Babylonian temple layout consisted of a central court surrounded by groups of rooms, of which the main one, the reproduced living room of the Mesopotamian private house, contairted the deity's image. The image stood on a bench in front of a recess in the back wall opposite the main door of a transverse or broad room. It could be seen by worshipers in the court, but only the priests had access to it. Toward the end of the third millennium, temple builders associated this lower sanctuary with another one aloft a mouncl. The stepped tower of the latter, the ziggurat, was designed to receive the deity alighting there after its descent from heaven. The Assyrian temple, at least in its earlier forms, lacks the central court. The temple worshiper entered the broad room itself by a bent-axis approach where the statue of the divinity stood. When the entrance was later slipped around the corner to the shortwall opposite the statue, access was direct, or at least along a central axis when the long room was subdivided, to what had become a long room rather than a broad room'

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

This long rooin was scarcely known in Lower Mesopotamia, but it is characteristic in the north where it appears among th Hittites and Assyrians. some scholars have suggested that this northern long room was an ancestor of the Greek megaron, as well as similar halls in Syria-palestihe. Although cultural connections cannot be ruled out, such simple architectual room-types could easi have arisen independently in various localities. Illustrations of each of these Mesopotamian types of rooms appear in figures 1l-13.

lca t t. 1r-round of an Assyrian long room temple after IDB, vol.P.-2,p.540.

Andrae, reproduced from

direct.

temple proper. These often included kitchens, strerooms, and workThe deity was conceived as living in the sanctuary, just as the king Lhoqr: lived in his palace surrounded by those who served him. As in Egypt, th rites of worship carried on in the temple by the priests took the form of ministrations to the physical needs a god was believed to have-food, drink, incense, and others. The people's responsibilitywas to supplydivine needs; in return they could hope for divine rewards.-on" can s jimitarities between certain aspects of the Mesopotamian tradition and the Jerusalem temple, but important differences remain. And it is no wonder because Jerusalem was a long way off and cultural contacts were not so

Most of these Mesopotamian tempres were elevated and surrounded by a wall that enclosed an entire complex of buildings associated with the

u
25

E.g., W. Andne, Das Gotteshaus und die Urrma ds Bauens in Alten Orient (1930). Tlris characterization of Mesopotamian (including Babylonian and Assyrian) temples is indebted to A. ko Oppenheim, "The Mesopotamian Temple," BIR I (1961): 158{5.

It is comparatively simple to describe the basic features of canaanite temples because so many of them have been found in recent years. Nearly all of the early ones are of the broad-house design, with the entrance on the long side. Later ones, especially long-house types, but also square-

<n

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

Fig. 13. The Enki temple of Amar-Sin at Ur depicting a direct-access broad-room approach, reproduced from Anton Moortgat, The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, p.58.

yra,30 Tell Tinat,31 and Hamath32 (the last two from the ninth century). In Palestine important Canaanite temples have been found at Ein-sedi.33 g,iract',4o Jericho,34 4i,35 Megiddo,36 Hazor,3l Shechem,3S Beth-shan,3 Lachish,4l Tell Farah,a2 T"ll Kittun,43 and Tell Mevor akh.aa philistine
Fig. 12. The early dynastic oval temple at Khafaje depicting a bent-axis approach' reproduced from The CatnbridgeAncient History, vol. 1, part2,p.27l.

30 A. Moortgat,Tll Chura in Nordost Syien (Kln, 1960, 1%2). 31 C' W. McEwan, '"The Syrian Expedition of the Oriental Institute of the Univercity of Chicago," AIA aL Q937): 8-13; the final report is R C. Haines, Excavations n the nUii of ,lntioih, Z 32 D. ussishkin, "Building IV in Hamath and the Temples of solomon and rell rayanat," IEJ'!,6
(196):
10,1-110.

house designs, often have

special treatment at the entrance (for example,

(Chicago, 1971).

the vestibule). Sometimes there is a special raised room at the rear, reached by steps, in which the divine statue was placed. In the main sanctuary room were benches where possibly worshipers sat or offerings were placed, a small altar before the raised shrine on which incense probably was offered, a libation stand or stands, and lamps. Outside was
the court and a larger altar for burnt offerings. Svro-Canaanite temples to the north of Israel include thosc at Ebla (Tel Mardikh), ugarit,27 Byblor, Alalakh (Tell Atchana,29 Tell Khwa-

34 K

33 A.Kempinski,'TheSinTempleatKhafajeandtheEn-GediTemple,,, IEI22(1972):10-tS.
Kenyon,

Drhg

up Jericho

Callawa The Early BronzeAge Sancruary atAi (et-Tell) (I.nndon, 1972). 36 G. l-nud, Megiddo I I : S easons I 9 3 5 I 9 39 (Chicago, 1948), pp. 78-84. 37 Y.Yadin,Hazor (lnndon, 1972),pp.67-105;ld., "Excavarions atHazor,L9S7," IEJB (1953):11-

35 J. Marquet-Krause, "I-a deuxime campagne de fouilles Ay," Srr'a 16 (1935): 330-33; J. A.

([.ondon, 7957), pp. L93-%.

14; Id.,

38 W. G. Dever, "The MBIIC Stratification in the Northwest Gate Aea at Shechem," BASORZL;
(L974):31-53; G.
The

"The Fourth Season of Excavations atHazor," BA 22 (1959):2-8,

39 A. Rowe,

R Wright, "Temples atShechem," ZA.I/80 (196S): 1-35. Fow Canaanite Ti:mples of Beth Shan I (Philadelphia, 1940); Id., ,rNew Light on the Evolution of Canaanite Temples As F:.xemplified by Restorations of the Sanctuaries Found at
Beth-Shan," PEQ (L931): L2-27.

40 41
26 27 28 29 P. Matthiae, Elq Un hnpero Ritrovato ([onno,1977). J. Gray, "Ugarit," in D. W. Thomas,Archaeologt and OT Sfridy (Oxford, 1967),pp.1,4547N. Jidejian, .Bllor, Through rhe Ages (Be irut, 19),pp.17-21. C. L Woolley,l lalakh: AnAccourttoftlrc Excavations atTllAtchana in the Hatay (l-ondon, 1955),

42 43

R. Amiran, Ear Arad (Jentsalem, 1978), pp. 3841. O. Tufnell, C. L Inge, and L. Hardinge, Lachish II: The Fisse Temple (Lnndon, 1940); C. Clamer and D. Ussishkin, "A C:naanite Temple at Tcll l-achish," BA 40 (1977):71-76. R de Vaux, "rzah," in D. W. Thomas, ed.,Archaeologt and OT Sudy (Oxford, L967),pp.371,83.

pp.82-89.

E. Eisenberg, "Thc Temples at Tell Kittan," Bl 40 (1977):77{.1. ,14 E. Stern, "Alate Bronze Temple at Tell Mevorakh," BA 40 (1977):89-91.

53

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context temples are known from Ashdod45 and Tell Qasile.46 4 n.* Phoenician temple from the Iron Age has been found at Sarepta,4T and to the south of Iirael an earlier EgyptianMidianite temple was found at Timna'.48 Structures that mav have served as Israelite temples have been identified at'Arad,49 Lachish,s0 and Kuntille^t'Ajrud.51 Some have argued for the location of another at Beersheba." Those most often cited as comparable to the Jerusalem temple are those at Hazor, Arad, and Tll Tinat (see figures 1,4-16). Yadin excavated a fourteenth century B.C. temple at Hazor that he considers a prototype of Solomon's.S3Its tripartite division, with doonvays on a single axis, and bases of two free-standing pillars at the original porch entrance, are striking comparisons, but the proportions of the rooms are very different from those of Solomon's temple. Furthermore, the debr contains a niche at Hazor. On the floor of the temple's latest phase were

The Jerusalem Temple in lts Ancient Near Eastern Context

?'2D

\-':) ^,O
lt

Fig.14. Ground plan

Stratum IB
p.873.

temple, reproduced from

(LBII)

Hazor

of

the

lDB$

found incense altars, libation tables, and the broken statue of a deity
standing on a bull. According to Aharoni,54 an Iron Age (ninth to seventh century B.C.) temple that he found at 'Aad in Judah preserves the essential plan of the

Jerusalem temple. There certainly are features common to both-the sacrificial altar that stood in the courtyard, the raised debr (possible in
M. Dothan and D. N. Freedman, "Ashdod 1," Atqot 7 (1967):13044; M. Dothan, "Ashdod,"
Qadntoniot 5 (L972): 6-10. "A Philistine Temple at Tell Qasile," BA 36 (L973):4248;ld., "Additional Philistine Temples at Tell Qasile," Bl 40 (1977): 82-87. J. B. Pritchard,.Sarepta:A heliminary Reportonthe lronAge; Excavatonsof the UniversityMuseum of the lJniversity of Pennsylvan4 1970-1972 (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 1340; Id., Recovering Sarepta, a Phoanician Ciry (Princeton, NJ, 1979), pp. 13148. B. Rothenberg, Timna (l-nndon, L972), pp. 125-201. Y. Ahroni, "Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple," BA 31 (1968): 2-32;ld., "Thc Israelite Sanctuary at Arad," in D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield, eds., New Directioru n Biblical Archaeologt (Garden City, IIY, 1969),pp.744;Y, Shiloh, "Iron Age Sanctuaries and Cults in Palestine," in F. M. Cross, ed., Synposia Celebrating the Sevatty-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the ISOrR (Cambridge, MA, 1979), pp. 1f-55. Y. Aharoni, Investigatioru at Lachsh: The Sanctuary and the Residzncy-Lachish V (lel Auv,

4S

46 A. Mazar, 47

48 49

50
51

Meshel, 'Kuntillet 'Ajrud: An Isaelite Religious Center in Northern Sinai," Eryedition 20 50-f; Id., "Did Yahweh Have a Consort?" BAR (1979):71-35. 52 Y, Aharoni, "The Horned Altar at Beer-sheba," Bl 37 (19@:2.6; Y. Yadin, "Beer'sheba: The 'The StratigHighPlace," BASOR222 (7976): 5-17; A. Herzog, A. F. Rainey, and S' Moshkovitz, raphy at Bcersheba and thc lcation of the Sanctuary," .&4 SOR 225 (1977): 49-58. Y.Yadin,Hazor: The Redkcovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (NewYork, 1975), pp. 79-L20;1d., "Excavations at Hazor," BAR2 (1964): l9l-?A7; Id., "Hazor" in D. W. Thomas, ed.,Archaeolop and OT Swdy (Oxford,1967),pp.U5-63. A. Aharoni, "The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle and the Arad San ctuary," AOAT 22 (1973):

1e7s).

(1978):

Jerusalem), an incense altar before the debtr (iA,rad has nvo), and two pillars at the temple entrance (bases only preserved at i{ad). But there are also differences-iA.rad's porch is not built up as is Jerusalem's; i{rad's hkdl is a broad-room type whereas Jerusalem's was a rong room; and Arad's inner sanctuary is merely a niche formed by a recess in the nave's wall whereas Jerusalem's was an extension of the hkal's rong wails. Given the basic structure of the Jerusalem,temple, the general pran of thefll Tinat (ancient Hattina in northern syria) templeprobably offers the best archaeological parallelof any temple iori ro fur.55 Alrhough the latter is only two-thirds the size of solomon's temple, it is a long hous with a tripartite division that serves as a chapel associated with a place. There are differences, too-Tinat's inner holy of holies is not square; its raised platform does not extend over the entire area of the room; nd its columns
55
See n. 30 as well as most discussions

14.

of canaanitc influence on solomon's temple.

54

55

The Jerusalem Temple in lts Ancient Near Eastern Context

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

:*:r:_l

rEEil:-I -r
?',"#-

ii

Lr-----:----:r*

*;

Plan of the Yahweh temple at

Fig 15.

--

-l-

bolism of the Biblical

IVorld, p. 129-

'Arad, reproduced from Othmar Keel, The Sym-

Eldmwas a broad-room type, with its entrance in one of its long sides.Its hkl was a long room with an axial entrance in one of its short sides. Its debrwas a square room. It was surrounded by storage rooms. This precise combination in one temple, however, appears to be unique. If we look for other parallels, we can find them: 1. The Jerusalem temple was part of a royal citadel, as were many temples in the late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age.5 2. The Jerusalem temple precincts were built on an artificial platform
such as those nowseen at Shechem in Palestine, Persepolis and Pasargadae in Persia, and Baalbek in Lebanon. Elevation appears to have been important to most temples.sT 3. The building technique of using alternating courses of stone and wood, as mentioned in 1 Kings 6:36, is found in Hittite ruins excavated in northern Syria, at Ras Sh_amra, at Kuntillet'Ajrud, and in Megiddo structures of Solomonic date.58 4. The Hebrew terms used for the temple-4ayit, hel<nl, EIdm, and

Furthermore, inasmuch as it dates to the ninth century 8.C., one cannot prove that it was not influenced by Solomon's temple, a logical assumption given Solomon's fame and influence'

are definitely within the portico (whereas Solomon's may or may not be).

others-are linguistically_related to Akkadian words used in Mesopotamian temple traditions.5e 5. The Jerusalem temple windows cut in the upper walls have Egyptian analogs, and they may be compared to the well-known "woman at the window" ivories whih sem to be-built up from several wooden frames.fl 6. The carved decoration of the Jerusalem temple (palm trees, open

ComParison and Contrast

Given this sketchy ovewiew of ancient Near Eastern temples, one can see that the Jerusalem temple may be described in comparable terms. Its

flowers, chains, cherubim) finds numerous parallels in Egyptian-influenced artwork in Syro-Phoenician fnds9l 7. The wainscoting of wood in the Jerusalem temple is not found in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but it is often used in northern Syria and Anatolia, where there was an abundance of wood.z 8. The darkness of the debr in the Jerusalem temple may be compared with the unlit inner shrines of most Egyptian temples; certain iemples also had curtains to hide the deity's image-from view.63
56 S. M. Paul and W. G.

Dever,BiblicalArchaelogt (Jerusalem, 1973),p.75.

from Fig 16. Plan of the temple at Tii Tinat (a),.and the king's palace (b), reproduced p.76' S.-M. Paut and W. G. Dever,BiblicalArgchaelogt, 56

57 The present platform of the Haram esh-Sharif gives one a pretty good idea of what Solomon's platform probably was like. 58 H. C. Thomson, "A Row of Cedar Beams," PEQ92 (1960):57-63, 59 Bayit = Akkadian ("bit"), hll = Akkadian ekallu ("palace") from Sumerian E-GAL ("great house"), El-atn = Akkadian ellanu ("front"). 0 For a photograph of such an ivory fom Nimrud, see J. B. Pntcha, ANE| 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ, 1969), p. 39, No. 131. 61 G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaelogt, 2nd ed. (Philad elphia, 1962), p. 147.
62 AtZnjirli, Boghazky,andTroy-seeW. F.Stinespring, IDB,vol. R-Z(Nashviltc, 1962),p.540. 63 T. Jacobsen, "Mesopotamian Religions," The New Encyclopedia Britannica Macropaedia, 15th

57

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

so popular in Mesopotamia. But such were practically nonexistent in the

9. Altars of sacrifice were commonly associated with temples in the ancient Near East. Solomon's altar of sacrifTce is not described in the Bible, but if the description in Ezekiel 43:73-17 applies, its general appearance was similar to a Babylonian temple tower. Its Hebrew terminology may even be related to kadian antcedents.& 10. The bronze sea before the temple of Solomon finds many parallels

in the ancient world, perhaps the best of which is a stone basin from Amathonte in Clprus. One could also compare the reservoir called apsu which is found in some Mesopotamian temples, as well as the "sacred lake" beside Egyptian temples. At least, if its terminology is a hint, it possibly had symbolic significance with cosmic overtones.5 11. The movable lavers in Solomon's temple are paralleled by bowls found at Ras Shamra, and Enkomi and Larnaka in C.!prus. The latter two have wheeled stands and are decorated with cherubim, vegetation, and spirals.tr 12. Solomon stood on a platform in the courtyard at the dedication of the temple. Archaeology has pres-grved representations of similar platforms, such as one at Ras Shamra./ 13. Controversy exists as to whether Jachin and Boaz, the two pillars in front of Solomon's temple, stood free and hence were purely symbolic, or whether they served functionally to support a roof or an architrave" Parallels from ancient Near Eastern temples exist for.oth; in fact, they are common in Egypt, Assyria, Phoenicia, and C,)rprus.8 14. AItars of incense, lamps, and tables are all abundant in the archaeological record of ancient Ner Eastern temples.69 15. Certain parallels to the ark of the covenant have been suggested on the basis of what appears between cherubim in ancient Near Eastern
contexts.To

art of Syria-Palestine where a winged sphinx (winged lion with human head) was popular.Tl 17. The absence of an image of the deity in Solomon's temple may be compared to the absence of statues in certain ancient sanctuaries where, however, there would still be symbolical representations of deities.T2 18. Certain ancient Near Eastern texts record the divine command to build temples, and even the divine provision of their plans, such as is suggested in Exodus 25:40 and 1 Chronicles?:1.1,-12. Furthermore, these temples were built from the donation of precious objects on the part of
*orihipers.73 However, if we look carefully at the temple of Solomon and its ancient Near Eastern analogs, there are some very significant dissimilarities. 1. We have already noted that although there are many analogies to the tripartite division of the temple, the pronortions of the rooms are unique and therefore may be signficant.Ta^ 2. ^the absence not only of an idol or an image of the Deity in Solomon's temple but also of any symbolical representation of the Deity surely sets it apart from other ancient Near Eastern temples. 3. The absence of benches in Solomon's temple., but their presence in most ancient Near Eastern temples, is significant. /5 4. Although there are similarities between the outward forms of the sacrificial system of Solomon's temple and those of the polytheistic systems, Israel's God certainly had no physical needs that human beings could supply (Ps 50:12-13). The system of the Jerusalem temple had a different setting and purpose; it was a form that Yahweh accepted for wo_rship, praise, thanksgiving, communion, and especially atonement for sin. / 5. While we have suggested many general parallels to the temple furnishings in Jerusalem, there are many significant differences in detail.
71 P. Dhorme and L. H. Vincent, "[s chrubins," RB 35 (1926):3?-SB,48l-95; W. F. Albrighr, "What were thc Cherubim?" BA I (19): l-3. 72 S. Lloyd, Ihe Archaeologt of Mesopotamia (l,ondon, 1978), pp. 183-84. 73 E.A.Reynrond,TheMythicalOriginoftheEgptianTemple(NewYork, 1969),p.31.6;H.Ringgren,
74 T},e closest parallel, of course, is the Mosaic tabernaclc whose dimensions yr'ere doubled by
Solomon.
Religions of theAncent Near East (Philadetphia, 1973),pp.24-?5.

16. Cherubim are found in the ancient world, and many scholars have compared those in Solomon's temple to the great winged bulls that were
ed. (Chicago, 1979), p. 1005. W. F. AJbright,lrchaeologt and the Religion of

lvael4th ed. (Baltimore, 195), pp. 150-52. "On King Solomon's Molten Sea," 8,4 12 (1949):86-n. 6 L. H. Vincent, "l-es bassins roulants du temple de Salomon," in Miscellanea Biblica B. Ubach (Montserrat, 1953), pp. 147-59. 67 A. Parrot, The Tanple of Imtsaln (New York, 1955), pp. 4445.
65 C. C. Wylie, 68 J. Oucllette,

1976), pp.9-11, 18,

'The Tcmple of Solomon," in J. Gutmann, The

1.9.

Temple of Solornon (Missoula,

MT,

75 ln an unpublished
76

69 For photographs from Flazor, see I'ritchard,l NEl, pp.3e45. 70 Panot,Trnple of Jm.salary pp.36-37; M. Haran, "The Ark and the Cherubim,"

/f,I9

(1959): 30-

38,89-94.

paper \Villiam H. Shea argues that benches suggest the presence of eifher worshipers or their surrogates. The templc's significance in Israelite worship and theology desewes a sepaate stud)I see, for instance, G. E. Wright's "Thc Theological Meaning of the Te mple,, in Biblical Archaelogt, pp. 14346.

58

59

lne Jerusalgm lcIIuJlg lll lts farrurlll l\dl LidLrrr wurv^r

what then can be concluded about the extent and significance of solomon's cultural borrowing from his neighbors? Need on go so far as J. Alberto soggin's view expressed in an influential westminister or Library volume: "solomon continued the official religious syncretism thigh had begun with David. The temple was dedicated to yahweh, the God of Israel, but it was a canaanite temple, where all the inhabitants of the region coulcl have felt at home. Behind its official functions, the reality could hardly be concealed that the temple served the national cult mor than it did the former Lord of Isra el-,,77 Before being carried away by the prevailing view that the Jerusalem temple was essentially canaanite, we must remember that Solomon inherited an Israelte tradition from the wilderness tabernacle, a tradition we have not studied here but which must be taken into account.TS of course, even_though its pattern and details were revealed (Exod 25:40),theycould hardly have escaped some cultural influence themselves.Tg le that as it may, Yahweh was apparently satisfied with the tent sanctuary in terms of His purposes for His people. when David wanted to buiid a temple, Nathan delivered a message from Yahweh (2 sam 7): David willnot build a "house" for Yahweh; rather, Yahweh will make a "rouse" (a dynasty) for David" Yahweh had not had a house since the Exodus and clidnot ially want one now. He apparently wanted the desert customs maintained. It would seem as though building a "house" in this situation would be infidelity, a concession to the influence of canaanite religion. The implied warning in Yahweh's response to David's plan was not without foundaion. The b_uilding of solomon's temple did bring about elements of syncretism with canaan-hence, many of the parallels we have noted. How could it have been otherwise when Hiram of Tyre and his artisans were the consultants? In spite of the dangers, Yahweh accommodated to the desires of rsrael's royal house to have a royal citadel completed with a dynastic temple 'Just like the nations." was there cultural borrowing? on th basis of foim, terminology, the function, one would have to say, "yes," though at the same time emphasizing significant and crucial differences that mde solomon's-temple unique, that is, Israelite and not phoenician. perhaps the most important distinction was in the way the temple functioned in
lsraeliteandJudaeanHistory(phiradelphia,rgTT),p.370. Holbrook, "The Israelite Sanctuary." 79 On3.imryftant study that suggests thisls F. M. Cross, ,,The priestly Tabemacle,,, BAR I (Garden ciry, NY, 1961), pp. 201-228.

Israelite theology. It was not so much God's dwelling as it was the bearer of His name (1 Kgs 8:27-30).It was important notbecause itwas IIis palace but because it was the focus of religious attention to which prayer was directed.S0 In other words, the Jerusalem temple was an accommodation to the needs of His people, a gracious consideration for human necessity. But this was something entirely different from a polytheistic religion that regarded the temple as a god's palace where his human servants supplied his physical needs and sought to please him with gifts. Thus in a way, both quotations at the beginning of this chapter may be considered correct. If we had only the archaeological remains of the Jerusalem temple without the Biblewe might conclude that it was a typical ancient Near Eastern temple. Such temples and their furnishings, along with other types of temples, did lie in Israel's environment. According to certain ancient texts, some of them were even built by divine command and according to divine plan. But while the Jerusalem temple fits into a definite cultural context, at the same time there are significant and crucial differences that made Solomon's temple unique. Perhaps the most important distinction was in the way the temple functioned in Israelite theology; it was not God's palace where His human servants supplied His physical needs, but it was the bearer of His name, and thus the focus of religious attention to which prayer was directed. The Jerusalem temple was an accommodation to the needs of His people. God guided its builders (1 Chr 28:1"1,-1,2; et al.), not in a cultural vacuum but among the current options, to choose an arrangement that already had some meaning but one which could be modified to teach Israel how and why she was different from her neighbors.

!l^ \1._\'HayesandJ.M.Milrer, 78
See

80 One has only to study thc refercnces to thc temple in the 61

Psalms

60

The Jerusalem Temple in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

Supplementary Bbliography
Aharoni, Y. "Israelite Temples in the Period of the Monar chy," Proceedings of the Fifih Wortd Congress o! Iewh Studies L (Jerusalem ,197t): pp.69-74. alt, . "Verbreitun! und Herkunft des syrischen Tempeltypus," P,IB 35 (1939): pp. 83-99 : KS 2 (Mchen, 1955): pp. 100-115. Busini<,T.e. DerTempelvonJerusalem.Yol.L:DerTempel Salomos. Leiden, 1-970. Comay, J. The Temple of lerusalem' New York, L975. deVaux, R.AncieniIsriel2:Religious Institttions. pp'3L3-30, 522,523.NewYork,
1965.

Eversull,

Garber, P. L" "Reconstructing Solomon's ^lemple," BA 1a (1951): pp-2-24. . "Reconsidering the Reconstruction of Solomon's Temple," IBL77

H.K.

The Ternples in ferusalem (1946)'

--Gfs:
72.

Gooding, D. W. "Temple Specifications in MT and Gutmann,

pptes-lz.

pp.tt6-2e. . "A Reconstruction of Solomon's Temple," Archaeologt 5 (1952): LXX," W

L7 (1967):

pp'

1-43-

J ., ed, The Temple of Solomon' Missoula, lll4T, L976. Haran, M.Temptes and Tmple-Senice inAncient Israel. Oxford, 1-977. Klein, M. C., nd H. e. Klin. Temple Beyond Time: The Story of the Site of Solomon's Temple at Ierusalem. New York, L970. Keel, Othmar.The Syntbolism of the BbticalWorld. New York, 1978, -esp. pp. 11176,"'lheTempl: Place of Yahweh's Presence and Sphere of Life." Kuschke, A. "Der Tempel Salomos und der'syrische Tempeltypus,' " in F. Maass, ed. Das feme und ihe Woft. pp.124-32 (Berlin, 1"967). Mhlenbrink,K. Der Tempel Salomos' Stuttgart, 1932. Parrot, A. Le temple de lrusalem. 2nd ed. (Neuchatel, 1955) : The Temple of

ferusalem. New York, 1"955. Schmidt, E. Solomon's Ternple in the Lght of Other Oriental Temples (1902).
Simons, J. J.Ierusalem in the OT. Leiden, 1952. Variou, "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East," Bl,R 1- (Garden City, NY, L96L): 145-200. Vincent, L.-H., andA.-M. Steve."ICrusalem de l'Ancien Testament2-3. Paris, 1956,

Wright, G. E. "solomon's Temple Resurrected," BA 4 $9aL): f7]]'_ Wriltrtj G.R.H. ,,pre-Israelite'iemples in the Land of Canaan," PEO L03 (I97t):
L7-32.

pp.373-610.