Solomon's Temple Resurrected Author(s): G. Ernest Wright Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May, 1941), pp. 17-31 Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3209118 Accessed: 28/03/2009 15:45 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

PUBLISHED BY

The American Schools of Oriental Research (Jerusalem and Baghdad) 409 Prospect St., New Haven, Conn. Vol. IV

May, 1941

--- .'t _

-

i*-'-r . f

--'-

-? '-

No. 2

.T 1

_

Fig. 1. The Bronze Sea of Solomon's Temple, as reconstructed by Mr. William Morden of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and published here for the first time with his permission.

SOLOMON'S TEMPLE RESURRECTED By far the most famous of the architectural wonders of Solomon was the Temple in Jerusalem. What was it like? In successive articles in this journal we have heard a good deal about the king's activities. Professor Glueck, excavating at the supposed base of Solomon's Red Sea fleet, Ezion-geber, discovered to his surprise, not docks or warehouses, but the largest smelter ever found in the Near East. Here was something new. Not only was Israel's most famous monarch a great hakim (wise man and maxim-maker), lover of the arts, and commercial tycoon; he was a copper and iron magnate as well. Dr. Engberg's survey (in B. A. 111.4 and IV.1) of the history of the great fortress site of Megiddo has revealed another part of the king's handiwork. The entire town was taken over for government purposes, strongly fortified, and garrisoned. The city wall, triple gate, horse stables, and governor's palace are the best witness yet discovered to the type of building carried on by the king throughout the coun-

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

19

try. Solomon was not as much interested in the pursuit of the glory of war as in the quest for the glories of art, culture, and display. His ideal seems to have been the picture of a wealthy, worldly, cultured gentleman, and as such he busily engaged himself in the attempt to put a "backwoods" nation on the civilized map. His Temple, therefore, should have been a splendid work, reflecting his major interest. Various attempts have been made to reconstruct it, one of the latest of which was to be seen on exhibition at the World's Fair in New York, if one felt moved to pay the sizable admission fee necessary to enter its special sanctumtsanctorum. Most familiar to biblical students is the Schick model, here shown in Fig. 2. Several other reconstructions can easily be found in almost any library, but it is a sad duty to state that all of them must be taken with a liberal supply of salt. The plain fact is that no vestige

Fig. 2.

The Temple of Solomon as conceived a half century ago by Conrad Schick.

of the Temple has ever been found, and we must place our confidence only in a reconstruction derived from the combination of a careful and. comparative study of the relevant archaeological discoveries with the Old Testament record. Until recently sufficient archaeological data have been lacking, and many biblical students have allowed their architectural and artistic imaginations full play. Today, the situation is changed, and we are forced to say without hesitation that if there is one thing the building did not resemble, it is the model in Fig. 2! The first step in resurrecting the Temple is to study the description and dimensions given in I Kings 6 and Ezekiel 41. If one is architecturally inclined or interested in puzzles, he can spend an enjoyable evening in attempting to reconstruct the ground plan from the figures given, perhaps allowing himself the occasional use of a standard Bible dictionary and commentaries. It has long been recognized that Ezekiel's vision in Chapter 41 contains detailed measurements which agree with and supplement the

20

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

account in I Kings 6 so well that it must preserve in part the data contained in some long lost description of Solomon's Temple. There are still scholars who are hesitant in placing much confidence in it because of its date and visionary character. The increasing weight of discoveries, however, has led many archaeologists to place more and more reliance upon it. Yet even after we learn the dimensions of the Temple, something about its ground plan, and the description of the way in which it was built, we still should not know how to vizualize it unless we knew something about the way in which people built temples in those days. But where are we to look? Shall we examine the great temples of Egypt and reconstruct the Solomonic building after their model? Some have done so, but we now know that they are, for the most part, wrong. Shall we examine the great temples of Mesopotamia? Several scholars have done this also, at least one of whom would see in Solomon's "house" (as the Bible frequently calls it) a typical Assyrian temple. We can now be fairly sure that such a theory is wrong. The Book of I Kings informs us that Solomon secured the aid of Hiram, king of Tyre, for material and technical advice. Thus while Israel furnished the labor, Hiram furnished the architects and artisans to draw up the plans and direct the work. To learn the nature of Solomon's Temple, therefore, we must find out what Phoenician craftsmen were accustomed to build. What was their stock in trade? Unfortunately, the temple art and architecture of Phoenicia during this period is not well known, since few excavations in contemporary city levels have been made. But from bits of information which can be gathered here and there we are now able to begin piercing the gloom. Various artistic treasures, for example, the collections of ivory panelling and inlay which have been found, enable us to vizualize what is meant when we read about "cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers" in I Kings 6:35. Excavations of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago at Tell Tainat (ancient Hattina) in Syria have uncovered the small chapel of the eighth century kings of that city (Fig. 3). This is the only temple contemporary with the kings of Israel ever found in Syria or Palestine, and it is most important to note that its plan is very similar to that of the Temple of Solomon. Of course, various other buildings of this period have been called temples. Especially has this been true in Palestine, where every sizable structure has at one time or another been thought by some one to be a temple unless there was definite proof to the contrary. It can now be categorically stated, however, that not a single temple dating between 1000 and 600 B. C. has been unearthed,in Palestine. Consequently, this newly discovered chapel at Tainat is most important. Other discoveries illuminate other details of the Solomonic Temple, some of which will be mentioned below. It is this information about Phoenician art and architecture, therefore, which now enables us to examine older reconstructions and say: "The Temple certainly could not have looked like those! It is necessary to pay more attention to the art of the men who are said to have planned it." One reconstruction has been published which fulfills that condition, for it is firmly rooted in the Phoenician (or Syro-Palestinian) type of

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

21

architecture of the period in question. This is the work of the German scholar, Professor Carl Watzinger, and is shown in Fig. 4. There are several details about which we are still uncertain, but in general the Temple of Solomon in its bare outline must have looked something like this. Let us imagine for the moment that we are in the position of the Israelite High Priest, and are able to enter the building and look around. Approaching the entrance from the east, we notice that the whole edifice is set on a platform, about 9 ft. high (Ezek. 41:8). A flight of ten steps leads up to the entrance, on either side of which are two free-standing columns, known as Jachin and Boaz (I Kings 7:21).1 These columns were made of bronze, and their height, including bases and elaborate capitals, was approximately 371/2feet. The circumference of the shafts is given as 18 ft. They were probably fluted and meant to be stylized versions of the famous Oriental "Tree of Life". Their tremendous size must have been an awe-inspiring spectacle to the Israelite, and casting them would indeed be no minor matter even for us today. But these are only the beginning of the wonders of this Temple, which attracts us not because of its size, but because of its symmetry, delicacy, and good taste.

JB\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\^\\\\\\\\\^\\\\\\\^\\\ Fig. 3.

Chapel of the kings of Hattina (Tell Tainat) in Syria. Drawn from Oriental Institute Bulletin, No. 1, 1937, p. 13.

Ascending the stairs, we pause in the main entrance, 21 ft. wide and closed with two tremendous doors of cypress. These doors are decorated with carved palm-trees, flowers, and cherubim. The carved work glitters in the light, because it is inlaid2 with gold leaf "fitted into the graven work" (I Kings 6:35). Stepping through the door, we find ourselves in the vestibule, known as the Ulam, a room measuring 15 x 30 ft.3 In front of us is another double door, identical with the first, except that it is smaller, being 15 ft. in width. Passing through it, we enter the main room of the sanctuary, the "Holy Place," or Hekal. Light streams in from several "latticed" windows (I Kings 6:4) inserted in the walls below the ceiling, and we can get some idea of the interior. The room is 45 ft. high, 30 ft. wide, and 60 ft. long. It is floored with cypress and lined with cedar, so that none of 1. 2. 3.

These queer names may be the first words of inscriptions placed on the columns by Solomon; see Scott, Journal of Biblical Literature, LVIII (1939), 143 ff. The English translations use the word "overlaid," but "inlaid" is usually more accurate. The figures throughout this section are naturally only approximate. The ordinary biblical cubit is about 11/2 ft. If the "royal" or "sacred" cubit were used in the Temple, as it probably was, these figures should be a bit larger. The ordinary cubit is really about 171/2 inches; the "royal" cubit about 201/2 inches. Compare this difference with that still existing today between the standard gallon and the "royal" or "imperial" gallon in England and Canada.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

22

H

>1 I^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ff

,.~~~~~~~~~~~I

I

t o

*o *I

Fig. 4.

2o I

3o I

The Temple as reconstructed by Watzinger. From Denkmaeler Palaestinas, Tafel 16. The scale is in cubits.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

23

the well-cut stone of the walls and foundations, with which we have been made familiar at Megiddo, can be seen. Its roof is flat, supported by great cedar beams. The walls like the doors are decorated with palm-trees, open flowers, chains (II Chron. 3:5), and cherubim, carved in the cedar and inlaid with gold leaf (see Figs. 5 and 6). The walls are divided into panels by the palm-trees. In each panel is a cherub with two faces, a human face looking in one direction, and a lion face looking in the other (Ezek. 41:18 ff.). The eerie light coming through the windows above, the delightful odor of the cedar, the delicate decoration on the walls, the great height of the ceiling, the offerings and furnishing, and above all the knowledge that in the room beyond is the throne of God, lend a sanctity, a pleasant yet fearful mystery, which is indeed awesome. Around the room had been placed the sacred furniture: the golden candlesticks, the table of showbread, and a small altar of cedar inlaid (or covered ?) with gold leaf. The last mentioned was placed directly in front of a flight of steps leading into the room beyond. It was square, 3 ft. across and 41/2ft. high. Had we been living among the Canaanites a few generations earlier we should have been very familiar with this feature, since the Canaanites were accustomed to place such an altar or table in their temples directly in front of the steps leading up to the raised "Holy of Holies" on which was placed the statue of the god. On the altar were placed offerings and incense with which the deity was thought to be pleased. Going around the altar and ascending the stairs, we open another door, like the others though smaller, and find ourselves in the "Most Holy Place," or the "Holy of Holies." Its real name was Debir, "Oracle," for here was the special abode of God. The room is a cube, 30 ft. in each of its dimensions, and it contains no windows. No light illumines it except for what comes through the open door from the dim Hekal. The pleasant odor of cedar pervades this room also; so we know that it too is lined with wood from the famous Lebanon forests of Hiram. That which immediately strikes our eye, however, is the dim outlines of two large olivewood cherubim, standing 15 ft. high, and "overlaid" with gold leaf. Their faces are towards us, and their wings, each about 71/2 ft. long, are stretched out horizontally. The two outer wings touch the side walls to the north and south; the inner wings meet each other in the center of the room. It is difficult to see in the darkness, but in all probability the Ark of the Covenant is to be found on the floor between the cherubim in the center of the room beneath the outstretched wings. Backing reverently out of the Debir and closing the double doors quietly behind us, we rapidly leave the interior of the Temple, and walk around the platform on the outside. We have plenty of space in which to wander because there are 7'/2 ft. between the base of the building and the edge of the platform. The north side and the south side each has a door. Entering one of them, we find a spiral stairway leading to two upper stories. In each of. the three stories is a whole series of small rooms, the ceilings of which are supported by horizontal ledges in the main wall of the Temple. Each story is 1'/2 ft. wider than the one below, as is shown in Fig. 4. These rooms are apparently used for storing the many implements and religious objects used in the Temple worship.

24

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

Returning to the front of the Temple and standing by the pillars, Jachin and Boaz, we are in position to look out over the courtyard. By far the most spectacular objects in front of us are the great altar of burnt offering and the brazen Sea. Both are tremendous affairs. The altar is said to have been 15 ft. high and 30 feet square, probably the base measurement (I Chron. 4:1).4 In any event it is a much enlarged edition of the small altars of incense which were so common in Canaanite sacred places (see B. A. I. 2, pp. 9, ff.). Besides its size the most conspicuous part of it are the "horns" projecting from each of the four corners, the origin of which and the reason for which are very obscure. The brazen Sea is a great bowl, 15 ft. in diameter and 71/2ft. high. It is made of cast bronze, about 3 inches thick, and its brim is "wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily" (I Kings 7:23 ff.). It rests on the backs of twelve oxen which are arranged in threes, each triad facing one of the points of the compass (Fig. 1).5 Computation has it that

Fig. 5. Fig. 5.

Cherubim guarding the "Tree of Life." Drawn by Cherubim guordinq the "Tree of Life." Drown by E. D. Wright.

such a bronze bowl would weigh between 25 and 30 tons, a tremendous affair, to which one might compare the great bell in St. Paul's in London which weighs but 171/2tons. This Sea and the shafts of the Temple columns must have presented great technical difficulties in casting, and we can but marvel at the genius of the artisan Hiram, who "filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work all works in brass," cast them in the clay beds of the Jordan valley, not far from the place where the River Jabbok flows into the Jordan (I Kings 7:13 ff. and 46). We are told further that "the weight of the bronze could not be found out," and one would judge that the cost of all that was used in the Solomonic building program would have been prohibitive were it not for the fact that Solomon controlled the Arabah mines whence the ore was taken to be smelted in his great smelter at Ezion-geber (see B. A. I. 2, 3; II. 4; III. 4). 4. 5.

These figures may not belong to the Solomonic altar, however, but to the altar which King Ahaz built as a copy of one he had seen in Damascus. At least, so a number of scholars believe (see II Kings 16:10). Kings 7:26 says that the Sea's capacity was 2000 baths, which at the rate of 72 pints per bath would be equivalent to 18,000 gallons. Scholars who are good mathematicians have long since figured out that neither a hemispherical or a cylindrical bowl of the dimensions given would hold half that much. We are thus left in doubt about this figure. II Chronicles 4:5 gives the capacity as 3000 baths, which makes matters worse!

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

25

A late record tells us that the Sea was for the special use of the priests as a place where they could wash (II Chron. 4:6). In any event it held a large supply of water which was available for ablutions of one sort or another. But why was it named "Sea?" The Jewish historian, Josephus, said it was so named because of its size. In all probability, however, it had a symbolic meaning. The sea played an important part in Canaanite mythology. It was symbolic of the chaotic elements in the universe, and it was also the abode of Leviathan, the dragon of chaos. Solomon's bronze Sea, therefore, like the cherubim and the columns, was used because it had had a long history in the theology and symbolism of Canaan. Its ultimate fate, however, was assured. There was too much valuable bronze in it. King Ahaz took the oxen from under it to pay tribute to the Assyrian king in 734 B. C., and the Babylonians broke up the bowl and carried the fragments to Babylon after the capture of Jerusalem in 587 B. C. (II Kings 16:17 and 25:13).

Fig. 6.

Types of floral decoration and frogment of o "chain" used for panelling and borders in Phoenician art.

SIGNIFICANCE

Having thus taken a rapid tour around the Temple, and having examined the two main objects of the courtyard, we may pause to take stock of what we have seen. One feature after another is now known to be perfectly at home in Syria: 1. The shape of the building with vestibule and free-standing columns is becoming increasingly familiar to us from the evidence available for Syrian architecture. There has been some debate as to whether the two columns should be placed in the door of the vestibule or flanking it on the outside, as shown in Fig. 4. In the Syrian temple unearthed by the Oriental Institute at Tainat (Fig. 3) they are in the entrance to the vestibule. A passage in II Chronicles (3:15-17) states explicitly, however, that Solomon "made before the house two pillars . . . And he set up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand and one on the left." It seems practically certain, therefore, that Watzinger's reconstruction is cor-

26

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

rect. In addition there is now adequate evidence that this type of construction was quite common in Phoenicia. Various explanations have been given for the pillars. They have been interpreted as fire-altars, obelisks, phalli, and twin mountains. From the shape of those to be seen elsewhere, however, the theory that they symbolize the sacred "tree of life" is by far the most reasonable. The exact meaning the tree had for theology is somewhat obscure, though it may have symbolized the reproductive capacities of Mother Nature and in this sense may actually have been a tree of life (cf. Gen. 2:9). 2. Another connection of the Temple with North Syrian and Phoenician architecture is the cedar lining of the interior. This is practically unknown in Mesopotamia, but several illustrations of it exist in the north. Incidentally, I Kings 6:36 tells us that the wall of the Temple courtyard was built "with three courses of hewn stone and a course of cedar beams." This feature seems to be exactly duplicated at Ras Shamra in Syria, and several other sites have a comparable technique of using wood with brick or stone. 3. Most Phoenician of all is the carved decoration: palm-trees and open flowers (also chains in II Chron. 3:5) used for borders and panels with cherubim used for filling. Various collections of Phoenician ivory under the strong influence of Egyptian art show us just what this sort of thing was. Figure 5 is a reconstruction of the use of stylized palms and cherubim, made on the basis of these ivories. Figure 6 shows flowers and chain which were popular in this art and which were used for panels and borders around the main decoration. In the same picture fall the elaborate column capitals "of lily-work," decorated with "nets of checker-work, and wreaths of chain-work" on which were hung large numbers of mietalpomegranates (I Kings 7:15 ff.). 4. Also familiar to us are the "latticed" windows. The Jewish Talmud speaks of two well known types of windows: the "Tyrian window" through which one can put his head, and the Egyptian through which one cannot. The former is or can be opened, while the latter is latticed. This Tyrian type of window is now very well known to us from the large number of ivory plaques which have the goddess of fertility looking out of them in the guise of a sacred harlot (Fig. 7). There is little doubt but that this is the type of window placed in the Temple, and other biblical passages support this view. It has long been recognized that "windows of fixed lattice work" is not a good translation of the Hebrew of I Kings 6:4. But a better translation is difficult to make because the words are obscure. Various conjectures have been given: among the best are "windows of openings and closings" and "windows of narrowing frames." Perhaps "windows of recessed frames" would best fit both the Hebrew and the kind of window which we know is being described. In any event there is no doubt that the Phoenicians got the idea of lighting a room from windows under the ceiling, above the side rooms around the main room, from the Egyptians. It seems probable also that the clerestory (or clearstory) type of building which the Temple represents is one step in the long history of our modern cathedral form which goes back through Greek and Roman architecture into Syria and Egypt.

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

27

The Temple of Solomon, therefore, was a typical Phoenician temple. Solomon, engaged as he was in the attempt to place Israel on the cultural map of the world, borrowed the whole religious equipment and paraphernalia of his culturally superior neighbors. So archaeology furnishes independent testimony to the fact which has previously been suspected from the Old Testament record that the reign of Solomon marked the greatest period of Israelite religious syncretism. The native Yahwist (Jehovist) conceptions of Israel were corrupted by the borrowing of pagan notions, thus ultimately precipitating the great prophetic conflict against such notions. Solomon was a great cosmopolitan; but according to the great prophets from the time of Elijah on the destiny of Israel was that she should be a "separate" people, uncorrupted by the paganism

Fig. 7.

A "Tyrion Window." From Thureau-Dangin, et al., Arslan-Tash.

around her, in order that the true knowledge of God might be obtained and that "justice might flow down as waters." Thus they were quite prepared to see the destruction of all that Solomon stood for to the end that the purposes of God might triumph. THE TEMPLE EQUIPMENT

This conclusion about Solomon and his Temple is further substantiated by the ritual objects made for the Temple service. Let us examine some of them. First of all, what were the cherubim? Why should two such tremendous winged beings be placed in the "Holy of Holies," and why their prominence on the walls and doors? The answer is not difficult. The first article published in this journal was written by Professor Albright of our Editorial Board on this very subject, and no one is better qualified to discuss it. He pointed out that the nature of the cherubim had been forgotton by the first century A. D. and that the Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us so. One thing we can be sure of is that they were not the charming winged boys of Renaissance art, a conception which is traced to little beings in Graeco-Roman art. A number of scholars have thought that they were the great winged bulls which

28

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

were so popular in Mesopotamia. But a check of the art of Palestine and Syria shows that such monsters are practically non-existent in this area. A process of elimination shows that the cherub can have been only one thing: a winged sphinx, that is, a winged lion with human head. This is the most popular winged being in Phoenician art. It is to be found on artistic objects uncovered in almost every excavation in this area; and it is the only being which could possibly be the cherub. Why was it used? In Fig. 2 of the article of Professor Albright just referred to there is shown a King of Byblus by the name of Ahiram. He is seated on his throne, which is a chair supported by two cherubim. The Canaanite king of Megiddo about 1200 1. C. also had a cherub throne, as one of the Megiddo ivories shows. Of course, we cannot be sure that he is the king of Megiddo, but at least he is some Canaanite (Phoenician) king. Just as these kings were enthroned upon the cherubim, so the God of Israel is often designated as "He who thrones (or is enthroned upon) the cherubim." In official Israelite religion it was against the law to make an image of God; so in the "Holy of Holies" it was his invisible Presence which was thought to be enthroned upon the two great hybrid beings, just as so many gods and kings of the Near East were so often represented. What was the religious significance of the cherubim? That is something which is rather vague. A fragment of an ancient hymn contained the words: "And He rode upon a cherub and did fly" (II Sam. 22:11, Ps. 18:10; to which compare Ezek. 10:20). Apparently in the religion of Israel as in other Near Eastern religions such winged beings were thought to be angels or divine assistants who aided a god in getting from place to place. From Genesis 3:24 we recall that cherubim were placed at the east of the Garden to guard the Tree of Life. This is exactly the conception which lies back of the cherubim and palm-trees carved on the walls and doors of the Temple. The drawing in Fig. 5 shows how this decoration may have looked. Here we see two cherubim guarding the sacred tree, as cherubim and trees in the Phoenician ivory collections are conceived. According to Ezekiel's vision (41:19) the cherubim in the Temple may also have had lion faces looking in the opposite direction from the human faces, but the drawing serves to illustrate the type of thing that was done. Cherubim as guardians of the tree are a popular subject in the ivory collections, and this fact together with the passage in Genesis gives us another hint as to the religious significance of these strange, divine emissaries. Besides the great altar and the brazen Sea Solomon's imported craftsman, Hiram, is said to have made a large number of implements of various sorts for the Temple sacrificial service. Ten lavers of bronze and ten wheel-stands to hold them were cast. According to the Chronicler, they were to hold water in which the instruments used in the burnt offering could be washed. No lavers exactly fitting the biblical description have been found in excavation. Lavers have been found, however, and Fig. 8 shows one which has been unearthed at Ras Shamra in northern Syria. Note the metal pomegranates hanging from the bowl. This is the sort of thing which is described as decorating the capitals of Jachin and Boaz (I Kings 7:20).

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

29

We have little evidence as to the nature of the golden candlesticks or the table of showbread. Archaeological discoveries suggest several possibilities, but do not single out any one for either case. But what about the shovels and flesh-hooks (II Chron. 4:15), the tongs, cups, snuffers, basins, spoons, and firepans (I Kings 7:49 ff.)? If these are common religious instruments, we ought to be able to identify them. This we are able to do for some of them, but not for all. A shovel from Megiddo, dating about 1300 B. C. is drawn in Fig. 9. A contemporary example has been found at Beth-shemesh. The fleshhooks, according to passages in Exodus and Numbers, were used in connection with the altar. In the story of Eli (I Sam. 2:13 f.) the implement was used to lift meat from cooking pots. The example in Fig. 9 is from

Fig. 8.

Lover from Ras Shamra. Drawn from Syria 10 (1929), pl. 60.

the site of Gezer. While few of these forks have turned up in Palestine, they were a rather common instrument in the ancient Near East, having been used from very early times.6 The tongs must have been an enlarged form of the tweezer which is occasionally found in the excavations. The "cups" cannot be identified at present. They must have been used in Canaanite religion, however, since the name for them occurs three times in the well known epic poems of Ras Shamra, but the contexts to do help us to identify them. The "snuffers" are also rather mysterious. It is not known whether the Hebrew word really means "snuffer." From its root one would judge that it should be something with which to prune the lamp wicks. "Basin" 6.

Incidentally, their name is mazleg, or sometimes mizlagah, and it occurs outside the Bible in only one place so far as is known. That, as I am informed by Dr. 1. J. Gelb, is in an Old Assyrian commercial document found in Asia Minor, and dating about 1900 B. C. This word, together with a few others (among them "ephod") suggests that Assyrian business men there may have had some contact with the East Canaanites or Amorites, from whom they borrowed it, and from whom the Israelites may also have received it, directly or indirectly.

30

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

is another unidentifiable object, but the biblical evidence indicates that it must have been a libation vase. The blood of the sacrifice was probably caught in such vessels and dashed from them upon the horns of the altar, and any other place where it was desirable to have a blood libation (cf. Ezek. 43:20). Libation vases are familiar to us on Mesopotamian reliefs, but they have not as yet been identified with certainty in Palestine. Fortunately, the "spoons" are known, and one is drawn in Fig. 9. The primary meaning of the Hebrew word for them is "palm," and numerous bowls with hands carved on their backs (the bowls thus being the palm of the hand) have been found in Palestine and Syria dating between about 1000 and 600 B. C. A hollow tube opens into the bowl, which raises

Fig. 9. Shovel and "spoon" from Megiddo, and "fleshhook" from Gezer. The first two are sketched from photographs of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

the question as to their purpose. The first and best explanation is that they were censers, the hollow tube allowing one to blow on the incense to get it to burn. An Egyptian relief seems to give some support to this theory. The only trouble with it is that, as far as I know, little evidence of burning has been found in them. The latest explanation is that they were used for libations of some sort, the stem being connected with a vessel which, when tilted, would allow liquid to flow into the bowl of the "spoon." This is a very forced explanation, but one must conclude that, given the above evidence, the reader's opinion is as good as mine. The "firepans" have not been identified, but presumably they were used to carry live coals to and from the altar. The treatment of these Temple instruments shows that much work

THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST

31

yet remains to be done with them, but it also illustrates the fact that no accurate translation of the Old Testament can be made without more archaeological work and careful attention paid to the results. Enough has been said to show that Solomon was not inventing and manufacturing the Temple equipment for the special service of the God of Israel without patterns to follow. He was borrowing all that Canaan (Phoenicia) had to offer, not only in the physical equipment of the Temple which we have been discussing, but undoubtedly also in ritual and methods of sacrifice. Even a name for the Temple, Hekal, was borrowed. This process of assimilation probably began earlier, but it certainly reached a culminating point in Solomon. Jeremiah was justified, therefore, when he said in the name of the Lord: "I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices . . ." (7:22). He was undoubtedly thinking of the elaborate ritual which had been borrowed and developed in the Temple service. Other well known passages voice the same impatience with what was thought to be the priestly non-essentials: "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt offering" (Ps. 51:16). "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord" (Isaiah 1:11). "I hate, I despise your feast days . . . Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them" (Amos 5:21-22). "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord ... . ? Shall I conmebefore him with burnt offerings . . . ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams . . .? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God !" (Micah 6:6-8). It is, of course, unfair to put the blame on Solomon for all this; nor do we know just how far the prophets might have gone in eliminating the sacrificial ritual, had they been given the chance. Yet Solomon played no small part in furnishing the occasion for the great protest because his point of view was in direct opposition to that of the later prophets. An archaeological examination of his Temple and its equipment throws this difference of opinion into bold relief. G. Ernest Wright