BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST SOFO, dc Published By The American Schools of Oriental Research (Jerusalem and Baghdad) Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. Vol. XIV February, 1951 No. 1 aka Fig. 1. The Howland-Garber model of Solomon's Temple. The Side Chambers are here removed and the roof pallet raised so that the interior can be seen. (Unless other- wise noted, photographs used in this issue are copyright by E. G. Howland and used with his permission.) CONTENTS Reconstructing Solomon's Temple, by Paul L. Garber ....................... 2 Radiocarbon Method for Dating, by Donald Collier ......................... 25 Date of Cloth from the Scroll Cave, by O. R. Sellers......................... 29 Archaeological News and Views........................................ 30 2 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIV, The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December) by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable, non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they are related to the Bible. Editor: G. Ernest Wright, McCormick Theological Seminary, 2330 N. Halsted St., Chicago 14, III. (Only editorial correspondence should be sent to this address.) Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; Millar Burrows, Yale University. Subscription Price: $1.00 per year, payable to the American Schools of Oriental Research, Drawer 93A, Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. Ten or more subscriptions for group use, mailed and billed to one address, $0.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. IN ENGLAND: seven shillings, six pence per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Oxford. BACK NUMBERS: Available at 3S5c'. , each, or $1.35 per volume. Entered as second-class matter, October 2, 1942, at the Post Office at New Haven, Connecticut, under the Act of March 3, 1879. RECONSTRUCTING SOLOMON'S TEMPLE Paul Leslie Garber Agnes Scott College, Decatur, Georgia The Jerusalem Temple which Hiram of Tyre designed and con- structed was "by far the most famous of the architectural wonders of Solomon."I It was also the Bible's most celebrated building. References to the temple of Solomon, to that which preceded it as the Israelite cultic center (the Mosaic Tabernacle) and to the attempted reproductions of its glory (the temples of Zerubbabel and Herod) appear at least once in 23 of the 39 Old Testament books and in 11 of the 27 New Testament books. Professor Wright's question, "What was it like?"2 represents a valid concern for our day as it was for biblical writers. Jeremiah 52 and Ezekiel 40-42 are contemporary witnesses to prophetic interest. II Chron- icles 3-4 and its earlier, more reliable parallel in I Kings 6-8, with their detailed descriptions of the Temple's floor plan, construction, decoration and furnishings indicate that both priestly and prophetic historians con- sidered these subjects worthy of minute consideration.3 The Talmud, Josephus and the church fathers add little to biblical data on the appearance of the Temple. Interpretation of the Temple passages by visual representations (artists' reconstructions, floor plans, drawings or models) seems not to have concerned European students of the Bible prior to the 18th century.4 During the 19th century the Solomonic temple attracted the interest of the scholarly world in a curi- ous manner. The titles of more than thirty different books on this subject are known to have been published in the last century, works in German. Italian, French, Latin and English. The discoveries of biblical archae- ology have been available in the main only to students of Solomon's Temple in the present century. It is this new-found body of information "which now enables us to examine older reconstructions and say: 'The Temple certainly could not have looked like those!' "5 Readers of this journal have been made aware from its first number of the aid biblical archaeology offers to those who would understand 1951, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 3 accurately the Solomonic period of Israel's history. A summary of this material as it bears on the Temple was made in the editor's article, "Solomon's Temple Resurrected."6 He intimated that such data now made possible a reconstruction of the Temple which would rest more soundly on facts than any yet produced. Mr. E. G. Howland, a professional model maker of Troy, Ohio, and I have combined forces in an effort which has extended over the past four and a half years to meet the challenge offered by Dr. Wright. Our purpose was to produce an accurate scale model of Solomon's Temple (% of an inch to the cubit) which would incorporate the latest findings of textual study and the relevant data from biblical archaeology, the feasibility of each suggestion being tested in actual construction. We Fig. 2. The Howland-Garber model of the Temple of Solomon as it appeared at its first public showing at Agnes Scott College, Decatur, Georgia, Oct. 17, 1950. In the finished model a portion of the left side is cut away so that the interior can be seen. wanted a representation of the Temple which school teachers of church and synagogue, as well as college and university professors, could use with confidence. Mr. Howland has supplied at his own cost his skills as a craftsman, his time and the materials of the model as a generous gift toward the advancement of scholarly biblical study. My part has been to do the research necessary to supply reliable answers to the prob- lems raised during the course of construction. We refused to put into the model any feature for which we were unable to secure authorization from the work of some recognized scholar. This policy resulted in our 1. Wright,. E.. "Solomon's Temple Resurrected." B. A., TV. 2 (May 1941). 2. Ibid. 3. Characteristics of the King's record revealed during the construction of the Howland- Garber model, I hope to discuss in some later publication. 4. Cf. Bh. Lamy published in Paris, 1720, and 0. Altshule in Amsterdam, 1724. For early bibliography see Hastings DB art. "Temple" by T. W.' Davies. 5. Wright, G. E., op. cit. 6. Ibid. 4 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIV, omitting from the model many features usually thought to be parts of the Temple, for example, the towers flanking the Porch, the exterior side doors and the cubical-like arrangement of the Side Chambers. Mr. Howland and I will be satisfied if others find the model to warrant Professor Albright's estimate: "It is certainly a much closer approach to the original Solomonic Temple than any model or drawing yet made."7 THE TEMPLEC OURT The "inner court of the house of the Lord" (I Kings 7:12) may refer to the paved level area set apart for the Temple.8 If so, that court was marked off by a low "fence" of "three rows (courses) of hewed stones and a row (course) of cedar beams." Whatever else there may have been, our sources are inadequate for us to know. Presumably some sort of housing for priests was provided and there were probably other struc- tures used in the Temple business. The Court contained, according to Kings, the Molten (Brazen) Sea and ten smaller wheeled lavers.9 Chronicles adds a feature described in greater detail in Ezekiel 43, the Altar of Burnt Offering. Biblical "brass"i n the age of Solomon, as Dr. Glueck has made evi- dent by his discoveries at Ezion-geber,10 was a poorly refined alloy of copper. Solomon held what may have amounted to a Palestinian mo- nopoly on this metal in his day. He could have afforded to supply Hiram of Tyre with the considerable quantity of it needed for as impressive an accomplishment in metal-working as the Sea. This hemispherical bowl, 15 ft. in diameter and 73' ft. high, was a casting about 3 inches thick. Its brim was "wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily" (I Kings 7:23). It held two thousand "baths" (almost 10,000 gallons, or about 31732b arrels)."1 The weight of the Sea has been estimated to have been between 25 and 30 tons. This entire load could scarcely have been supported solely on the slender legs of the twelve cast bulls which appeared to uphold the Sea: some sort of center support must be sup- posed. King Ahaz replaced these bulls with stone supports when he "took" the bulls "for the King of Assvria" (II Kings 16:17-18). The twelve calves were arranged in four groups of three, each trio headed toward the major points of the compass. The arrangement sym- bolized, according to Professor Albright, "the round of the seasons through the year."12 The Temple descriptions in II Chronicles 3 and in Ezekiel 43: 13-17 give prominent place in describing the Court to a burnished copper Altar of Burnt Offering of impressive proportions. Dr. Albright considers the omission of this feature in I Kings to be "due to accident" and with- out religious reasons.13 He thinks this altar was built in stages like a Babylonian temple-tower, the uppermost stage being crowned with "horns." Archaeological discoveries are yet to be made which would supply the details of design and decoration which would make possible 1951, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 5 a complete reconstruction of the Altar of Burnt Offering.14 The Howland- Garber model of the Altar is intended to block out in rough outline only what is definitely known of this feature. Dr. Albright convincingly translates Ezekiel 43:14 as naming the top level of the great Burnt Offering Altar "mountain of God," (har'el) and thus interprets the Altar as symbolizing the mountains of the created universe.15 If so, then the copper-bowl Sea could have stood for the sub- terranean fresh water ocean from which the ancients believed all life and fertility were derived.16 THE TEMPLEE XTERIOR King Solomon was, in Dr. Wright's phrase, "something new" in Israelite kingship - he was a "commercial tycoon."17 He was engaged as middle-man in trading Cilician horses and Egyptian chariots. He put to use the recently domesticated camel as a "ship of the desert" for long hauls.18 He was, as Dr. Glueck has made clear, in addition to all this Fig. 3. On the left is the copper "Sea" with its "lily" cup-brim. The original was a huge affair, holding some 10,000 gals. of water, presumably for use in the sacrificial service. On the left is a reconstruction of the Altar of Eiurnt Offering, according to Ezekiel. (The little copper pan here seen resting on the Altar's 'horns" has no ancient analogy and probably should not be there. -G. E. W.) a copper and iron magnate.19 The peaceful state of world affairs com- bined with Solomon's ingenuity in making his services valuable to his 7. Letter to the writer, October 9, 1950. 8. Gottstein's model in the New York Jewish Museum diorama "Proclaim Freedom" (1950) shows no paved court, no altar and no sea. 9. The smaller wheeled lavers we have not reproduced. The type is illustrated by a Cyprus finding (Gressmann, H., Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum A. T.) which bears close resemblance in size and description to the record in 1 Kings 7:27-39. 10. Glueck, Nelson, The Other Side of the Jordan (1940) pp. 93ff.; Bulletin of the American Schools . . 79, pp. 3f.; BASOR 90, pp. 13f. 11. Wylie, C. C., 'On King Solomon's Molten Sea," B. A., XII, 4 (December 1949), p. 86. 12. Albright, W. F., Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 149-150. Cf. Psalm 19:6. 13. Ibid., pp. 151-152. 14. McCown, C. C., "Hebrew High Places and Cult Remains," Journal of Biblical Litera- ture. LXIX (1950), pp. 250-220. 15. Albright, W. F., op. cit., pp. 149-150. 16. Wright, G. E., B. A., VII, 2 (December 1944), p. 74. For the older views, see r.enzinger in The Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 4341. 17. Wright, G. E., B. A., IV, 1 (May 1941), p. 17. 18. Albright, W. F., in The Jews, edited by L. Finkelstein (New York, 1950), p. 27. Isserlin, B. S. J., Palestine Exploration Quarterly (Jan.-Apr. 1950), pp. 50-53 19. Glueck, Nelson, "The Excavations of Solomon's Seaport: Ezior-geber," The Smith- sonian Report for 1941 (Washington D. C., 1941) pp. 453-478. 6 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIV, more illustrious monarch-neighbors served to produce a period of econ- omic inflation in the land of Israel which was to be long remembered with nostalgia. "And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones ... for abundance" (I Kings 10:27). The Temple Solomon built was a part of all this. It was not as large as some in the ancient world, nor was it as ornate. It stood, how- ever, for nearly four hundred years as one of the wonders of the biblical world renowned for its dignified simplicity and the excellence of its craftsmanship.20 A "jewel-like structure," someone has called it. "And when the queen of Sheba had seen ... the house he had built ... there was no more spirit in her" (I Kings 10:4-5). FLOOR PLAN The Temple was essentially a house of two rooms arranged length- wise. The entrance, which may have faced East,21 was on the short side and an open Porch (Ulam) sheltered the single door. The larger room, called the Holy Place (Hekal), was 60 ft. long, 30 ft. wide and 45 ft. high. The inner room, called the Holy of Holies (Debir), was a cube 30 ft. by 30 ft. by 30 ft.; this size was made possible by a raised floor (cf. the raised sanctuary of the Tell Tainat chapel). These two rooms had coun- terparts in the two divisions of the Tabernacle (Ex. 25-31, 35-40). Furthermore, it appears from the small 8th century chapel discovered by the Oriental Institute at Tell Tainat (ancient Hattina) that the Porch (Ulam) was "the style" with Phoenician builders. Hiram, Solomon's most prominent artisan, and thus presumably architect of the Temple as well as its contractor, was of Hebrew extraction but was from Tyre and had learned his art from the Phoenicians (I Kings 7:13, 14). The Side Chambers are spoken of in Kings as a non-essential feature built "against the walls of the house round about" (I Kings 6:5) and, to our present knowledge, are without exact parallel in the temples of the ancient Near East. No textual or archaeological evidence has been found for the towers which are so often used in reconstructions. THE PLATFORM-BASEMENT The gleaming white (meleqeh) limestone used for the Temple walls and raised basement (73 ft. high) was probably found near at hand, perhaps in quarries under the Temple area. These huge blocks, many twelve and fifteen feet in length, were of uniform tier height (approx. 1 ' ft.) and were laid in a pattern of headers and stretchers which we know from excavations at Megiddo and Samaria was "the style" of Phoe- nician masonry in Solomon's time. The stones were carefully shaped at the quarry. The red paint used as marks for the masons has been found on some of the uncovered blocks. Hence the stones would fit exactly 1951, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 7 " and without trimminig on the site. ... there was neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was building" (I Kings 6:7). In Mesopotamia where, with soil lacking a rock base, the structures needed a firm foundation, temples had been put on raised basements. Solomon's Temple was built on an ancient rock threshing floor. (II Sam. 24:18-25). The function of the raised basement was unnecessary, but the style prevailed. THE STEPS Approach to the Porch (Ulamn)e ntrance was by a broad stairway. Fig. 4. The Howland-Garber model floor-plan is on the left. On the right, an isometric plan of the Tell Tainat chapel in northern Syria, prepared by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. The Jewish Talmud tractate Middoth (3:6) states that these steps had two intermediate landings.22 This made impressive the processionals of the priests as they entered the Temple with daily fresh supplies for the Table of Shewbread, incense for the little gold altar and oil for the lamps. The High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) ascended these steps in the sight of Israel on his way into the Holy of Holies there to make atonement for himself and all the people (Lev. 16; Hebrews 9:7). 20. M. B. Rowton, BASOR 119 (October 1950), pp. 20-22, confirms Dr. Albright's (BASOR, 100, pp. 16-22) dating: Solomon's Temple was begun in Ziv (May) 959/8 B. C. It was completed 71/2 years later (1 Kings 6: 1, 37, 38), in Bul (September or October) 951/950 B. C. 21. The Temple was oriented to permit the rays of the rising ?!un to shine directly into the Holy of Holies at the autumnal equinox: Hollis, Myth and Ritual (ed. by S. H. Hooke) pp. 87ff.; H. G. May, Journal of Biblical Literature, LVI (1937), pp. 309ff. 22. Translated in Hollis, F. J., The Archaeology of Herod's Temple with a Commentary. on the Tractate "Middoth" (London, 1934). Also as an appendix to Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. 8 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIV, THE PILLARSJ ACHIN AND BOAZ Standing at the head of the platform steps and fltanking the Porch entrance were two "pillars of brass," Kings tells us, the one on the "right" named Jachin, the one on the "left" called Boaz (7:21). Were these names inscribed in some way on the pillars? We do not know. Nor do we know exactly what these words meant. Evidently they were "key words" in some kind of mottoes which, as has been suggested by Professor R. B. Y. Scott, invoked the blessings of God on David's dynasty.23 Many authorities have thought of Jachin and Boaz as columns which supported the Porch roof. Archaeologists today on the basis of much accumulated contemporary evidence are generally agreed that Solomon's Jachin and Boaz were free-standing pillars, the function of which was not structural but rather decorative and symbolic.24 The precise meaning of the symbolism is not yet apparent but it is likely that the pillars (as cf. "the pillars of Hercules") were combined in some cosmic meaning together with the Sea and the Mountain-Altar to signify the Lordship of Yahweh over the elements of the natural world.25 The Bible does not mention bases for these columns. From archae- ological parallels, as at Tell Tainat, it may be assumed that the pillars had bases, probably of stone. An 8th century B. C. pillar base found at Tell Tainat, which is now a part of the Museum of the Oriental In- stitute, has been copied for the Howland-Garber model. The shafts of Jachin and Boaz are described in I Kings 7:15 as 27 ft. high and about 4 ft. in diameter. Some question has been raised as to the accuracy of this latter dimension.26 The size of the Tell Tainat base persuaded us to adopt the Kings' diameter measurement. The biblical writer implies that these columns were single castings of "brass,"t hat is to say, of a copper alloy. Professor James L. Kelso and other have indicated the lack of archaeological evidence to demonstrate that the ancients were able to make single castings in such large sizes.27 From the Balawat gates (early ninth century B. C.), Khorsabad and elsewhere castings of metal plates are known which were made to be fastened to some kind of wood wall or post.28 It was this suggestion which led us to conceive of these pillars as having been made of cylin- drical cast copper plates slipped over a built-up cedar post. This pro- duces a column which appears to be a single casting but which was con- structed in a way we know was within the capacity of skilled workmen in the time of Solomon. The Hebrew text of the passage of I Kings 7:16-20 where the chapi- ters of these pillars are described is filled with words which appear only here and their usage is evidently technical. Of all the Temple passages, these are perhaps the most difficult to translate visually. The chapiters have been analyzed carefully and clearly by Sir John L. Myres as con- taining three elements: (1) a bowl member, (2) a leaf member and (3) 1951, 1) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 9 the pomegranates.29 In 1908 G. Schumacher found at Megiddo a chapi- ter with such elements of design and published it in its original colors with the caption, "an incense burner" (Raeuchergefass).30 This chapiter has the essential elements: (1) a bowl member and (2) a leaf member with the proper "lily work" decoration, and it has been suggested as a suitable design for the Jachin and Boaz chapiters.31 We used color film to copy Schumacher's design in its original colors and added strands of (3) pomegranates - 200 on each chapiter in two "rows," i. e. strands of 100.32 A realistic contemporary pattern of a bronze pomegranate which was found at Megiddo was copied by Mr. Howland.33 Fig. 5. On the left is the model's rendering of the Chapiters or capitals of the free-standing columns at the entrance of the Temple. On the right is the capital of a column found at Miegiddo before the first World War, and thought by the excavator to be a vessel for incense. It furnished the pattern which was copied in the model. (The Megiddo capital is from G. Schumacher, Tell el-Mutesellinm, Leipzig, 1908, I, front- ispiece.) 23. Scott, R. 13. Y., Journal of Biblical Literature, LVIII (1939), pp. 143ff. 24. Albright, 1., "Two Cressets from Marisa and the Pillars of Jachin and B3oaz," BASOR 85 (1942), 11(cid:127). )1). 18-27; Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 147. For a recent dissenting view see IMyres, J. L., "King Solomon's Temple and Other Buildings and Works of Art," Palestine Exploration Quarterly (Jan.-Apr. 1948), pp. 27f. 25. Cook, S. A., The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeology (London, 1930), pp. 54ff. Gray, G. B., Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1925), pp. 152-153. 26. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 147. 27. "On the casting of Jachin and Boaz I can find no metallurgist who will make a publishable statement. All that I talked to think it most unlikely that these columns were cast in 27 ft. lengths either 'well type' or 'cope and drag.' " J. L. Kelso to W,. F. Albright, July 25, 1947. 28. A (cid:127)horsabad example of this repousee work may be seen in the Oriental Institute collection. 29. MIyres, J. L., op. cit. 30. Schumacher, G., Tell el-Mutesellim (Leipzig, 1908) I, frontispiece. 31. May, H. G., "The Two Pillars Before the Temple of Solomon," BASOR 88 (1942), pp. 19-27. Sir John Myres did not consider the Schumacher design in his analysis (op. cit.). 32. J. A. Montgomery on I ICings 7:23 in a forthcoming commenttiry on Kings to be published by Chas. Scribners and Sons, New York. 33. May, H. G. and Engberg, R. MMI. aterial Remains of the Megiddo Cult (Chicago, 1935), p. 20, fig. 5. MIr. Howland cast each pomegranate of lead separately making each 1/16 of an inch in diameter. 10 THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XIV, Dr. Albright thinks these chapiters may have served as braziers for incense or oil.34 If SO, they could have reminded worshippers of the Exodus "pillar of cloud by day" and "pillar of fire by night." The Howland-Garber model is designed with cut out portions of the chapiter to show this possibility, even though it may be difficult to conceive how fluid and fire could be delivered 30 to 35 feet from the platform floor to the chapiter bowl. THE PORCH Dr. Wright pointed out in the Biblical Archaeologist article (May, 1941) which was adopted as the starting point in the research on the Howland-Garber model that the chapel of the Tell Tainat palace "is the only temple contemporary with the kings of Israel ever found in Syria or Palestine." The floor plan of this structure suggests that the Porch of Solomon's Temple was, like that at Tell Tainat, of liwan type, i. e. a stoop-like shelter for the main Temple entrance, not an interior room. This impression is confirmed by the fact that in the Kings record (ch. 6) wherever "the house" (i. e. Temple) is used, it refers to the Holy Place and to the Holy of Holies only, excluding the Porch as one of the Temnle rooms. Furthermore, the record mentions only two sets of doors for the Temple: (1) "for the door of the Temple" (6:33) and (2) "for the en- tering of the oracle (Holy of Holies)" (6:31). No provision for doors into the exterior opening of the Porch seems to have been made. The frame for the model's Porch door-way has been adapted from one of the Phoenician Dog River inscriptions which Dr. Albright dates around the time of Solomon.35 In three different places in I Kings 6 (vv. 9, 15, 18), the writer mentions that "the house," i. e. the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, was panelled and ceiled with cedar of Lebanon. In verse 18 he states, "There was no stone seen." The architect seems to have intended the gleaming white of limestone for the exterior walls, the fragrance and rich color of cedar for the interior. It is possible that the Porch, not be- ing considered an essential part of "the house," was not panelled. The Howland-Garber model, however, treats the inside of the Porch as a part of the interior and shows the cedar wainscotting and the fir (or better, cypress) floor.36 THE TEMPLE DOORS The Temple doors were tall and narrow. The door opening was fifteen feet wide by thirty-three feet high. These dimensions are not specified in the Kings account but are derived from the measurements of the interior room sizes which are given. The doorway size is further confirmed by the necessities of pallet construction as discussed below. If M. Dussaud is correct in his reading of 1 Kings 5:18,37 Phoe- nician carpenters from Byblos (Giblites) were imported to do the wood