DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26747#0266
202
SYPJAN ARCHITECTURE.
Book IY.
(wooclcuts No. 134 and No. 135), only that tlie latter is by far tte
larger of the two, being 50 ft. in front, while Solomon’s temple was
only 30 ft. (20 cubits), and had consequently only 2 pillars in its
porch instead of 4. In botli buildings the porch opened into the
largest hall of the building; and beyond this, at Jerusalem, was the
Idoly of Idolies, a cube of 30 ft. each way. The arrangement of the
innermost part of the temple-palace of Darius cannot be clearly made
out. No doubt it ditfered from the Jewish temple, as the objects for
whicli the buildings were designed were different; but the small
chambers on the side, the square mass on either side of the porch, and
above all the form of the capitals of the Persepolitan pillars (woodcut
No. 140), explain the corresponding arrangement in the Jewish
temple far more completely than anything elsewhere in antiquity
can do.
Another curious circumstance mentioned by Josephus,1 but not in the
Bible, is that the Jewish temple had an upper story of wood on its roof,
a talar, in short, such as that represented (woodcut No. 136) as carved on
the tomb of Darius. Its use in the Jewish temple is by no means so clear,
though its existence may serve to explain the discrepancy
between the measurements given in tlie books of Kings
and Chronicles of the height of the building, the proba-
bility being that the temple itself was 45 ft. high, and the
talar, and probably the eastem towers, as much more.
The parts and dimensions of Solomon’s ternple were, 1st,
a porch, 30 ft. wide by 15 ft. deep ; 2nd, a pronaos, 60 ft.
by 30 ft., and beyond that a naos or sanctuary, 30 ft.
cube; the lower cliambers were only 7^ ft. wide by 101 ft.;
so that the whole extemal dhnensions of the building
probably were rather more than 60 ft. in width by 120 ft.
in length, or less tlian an ordinary parisli church in
this country.
The liouse of the Porest of Lebanon still more distinctly resembled
an Assyrian palace; the principal apartment being 150 ft. long by half
that breadth, and 45 ft. in height, and,
accordingto thedescription, itssection
seems to haA’e been like the diagram in
woodcut 145, though there is a dis-
crepaucy between the authorities tliat
introduces some difficulty into the
matter. The pillars, like those at Ni-
neveh, were of cedar, and supported
a roof of the same combustible and
perishable niaterial. Following Jose-
phus we read t-hat “ Solomon built some of these (the walls) with
stones of 10 cubits, and wainscoted the walls with other stones that
were sawed, and were of great value, sucli as are dug out of the
bowels ot the earth for the ornament of temples. The arrangement
144. PlanofSolo-
mon’s Temple.
Scale 100 ft. to I inch.
145. Diagram Section of Solomon’s House.
1 Ant. Jud., viii. 3, 2 ; xv. 11, 1. Bel. Jud., v. 1, 5.
SYPJAN ARCHITECTURE.
Book IY.
(wooclcuts No. 134 and No. 135), only that tlie latter is by far tte
larger of the two, being 50 ft. in front, while Solomon’s temple was
only 30 ft. (20 cubits), and had consequently only 2 pillars in its
porch instead of 4. In botli buildings the porch opened into the
largest hall of the building; and beyond this, at Jerusalem, was the
Idoly of Idolies, a cube of 30 ft. each way. The arrangement of the
innermost part of the temple-palace of Darius cannot be clearly made
out. No doubt it ditfered from the Jewish temple, as the objects for
whicli the buildings were designed were different; but the small
chambers on the side, the square mass on either side of the porch, and
above all the form of the capitals of the Persepolitan pillars (woodcut
No. 140), explain the corresponding arrangement in the Jewish
temple far more completely than anything elsewhere in antiquity
can do.
Another curious circumstance mentioned by Josephus,1 but not in the
Bible, is that the Jewish temple had an upper story of wood on its roof,
a talar, in short, such as that represented (woodcut No. 136) as carved on
the tomb of Darius. Its use in the Jewish temple is by no means so clear,
though its existence may serve to explain the discrepancy
between the measurements given in tlie books of Kings
and Chronicles of the height of the building, the proba-
bility being that the temple itself was 45 ft. high, and the
talar, and probably the eastem towers, as much more.
The parts and dimensions of Solomon’s ternple were, 1st,
a porch, 30 ft. wide by 15 ft. deep ; 2nd, a pronaos, 60 ft.
by 30 ft., and beyond that a naos or sanctuary, 30 ft.
cube; the lower cliambers were only 7^ ft. wide by 101 ft.;
so that the whole extemal dhnensions of the building
probably were rather more than 60 ft. in width by 120 ft.
in length, or less tlian an ordinary parisli church in
this country.
The liouse of the Porest of Lebanon still more distinctly resembled
an Assyrian palace; the principal apartment being 150 ft. long by half
that breadth, and 45 ft. in height, and,
accordingto thedescription, itssection
seems to haA’e been like the diagram in
woodcut 145, though there is a dis-
crepaucy between the authorities tliat
introduces some difficulty into the
matter. The pillars, like those at Ni-
neveh, were of cedar, and supported
a roof of the same combustible and
perishable niaterial. Following Jose-
phus we read t-hat “ Solomon built some of these (the walls) with
stones of 10 cubits, and wainscoted the walls with other stones that
were sawed, and were of great value, sucli as are dug out of the
bowels ot the earth for the ornament of temples. The arrangement
144. PlanofSolo-
mon’s Temple.
Scale 100 ft. to I inch.
145. Diagram Section of Solomon’s House.
1 Ant. Jud., viii. 3, 2 ; xv. 11, 1. Bel. Jud., v. 1, 5.