Solomon's Temple

[Brianroy]

Building Solomon's Temple:   The Labor Force



Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews   8.2.9

 Now king Solomon, as soon as this epistle of the king of Tyre was brought him, commended the readiness and good-will he declared therein, and repaid him in what he desired, and sent him yearly 20,000 cori of wheat, and as many baths of oil: now the bath is able to contain 72 sextaries. He also sent him the same measure of wine. So the friendship between Hiram and Solomon hereby increased more and more; and they swore to continue it for ever.

And the king appointed a tribute to be laid on all the people, of  30,000 laborers, whose work he rendered easy to them by prudently dividing it among them; for he made 10,000 cut timber in Mount Lebanon for 1 month; and then to come home, and rest 2 months, until the time when the other 20,000 had finished their task at the appointed time; and so afterward it came to pass that the first 10,000 returned to their work every 4th month: and it was Adoram who was over this tribute.

There were also of the strangers who were left by David, who were to carry the stones and other materials, 70,000; and of those that cut the stones, 80,000.

Of these 3,300 were rulers over the rest.

He also enjoined them to cut out large stones for the foundations of the temple, and that they should fit them and unite them together in the mountain, and so bring them to the city.

This was done not only by our own country workmen, but by those workmen whom Hiram sent also.

Clement of Alexandria tells us that the 80,000 that were hired by King David to cut the stones, were not Syro-Phoenecian; but rather, these were Egyptian foreigners hired to cut the rock that still stand at the base of the Temple Mount walls.   The 70,000 Syro-Phoenicians were primarily those who specialized in carefully transporting the stones and other materials to the Temple Mount. 

In March/April 2002 of BAR ("Herod's Roman Temple" by David Jacobson), there is the presumption of Syro-Phoenecian influence, even when there might have been that of an Egyptian influence in the architectural design.

Says Clement of Alexandria, in clarifying (regarding Solomon's Temple):

...it is easy to perceive that Solomon, who lived in the time of Menelaus (who was during the Trojan war), was earlier by many years than the wise men among the Greeks.

And how many years Moses preceded him we showed, in what we said above.

And Alexander, surnamed Polyhistor, in his work on the Jews, has transcribed some letters of Solomon to Vaphres king of Egypt, and to the king of the Phœnicians at Tyre, and theirs to Solomon; in which it is shown that Vaphres sent 80,000 Egyptian men to him for the building of the temple, and the other as many, along with a Tyrian artificer, the son of a Jewish mother, of the tribe of Dan, as is there written, of the name of Hyperon.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21

Is the socially accepted presumption of Syro-Phoenician dominance of Solomon's Temple design the following of agnostic emcumbrancies, and congenial conjecture for the sake of an ostentacious display of political correctness within academic social circles?   Perhaps. 

The fact of the matter is, our knowledge of Egyptian commercial influence as well as in art and design in the Davidic era (which is definitively in the mid-11th  Century B.C.) could fare much better, as we yet need to know more of this period.

The rabbinical testimony was that the stones, specifically  of the Temple Building itself (based on later known Herodian Temple requirements),  had to have no more an indentation than that of a fingernail's thinness for a "flaw".  That is, these particular stones that were to make up the actual Temple building, had to be de facto "flawless".   Short of running some sort of mill water saw,  it is difficult for me to envision the perfecting processes...water being a key neccessity.  Perhaps, this very neccessity made the preparation process so long to do in David's reign. 

   We see that the historical testimony above is that there was also an assembly test run at the quarries prior to shipment.  And if the Egyptians were the ones cutting the stones, the principal design of the Temple outwardly, would have had an Egyptian flair to it.   While inwardly, Hyperon (ruler only over the 70,000 Syro-Phoenecians) would have dealt with the interior, the decorating, and the artifacts.

But what is curious to me, is that we often envision Jerusalem in David's time as but a few thousands.  Where did they house these 80,000 Egyptians? 

 They would have had to be encamped in some sort of orderly, even militaristic fashion, within 4-5 miles of Jerusalem's Temple Mount (such as some encamping  in and around Bethlehem by the 4.1 mile 2nd century A.D. reckoning of its distance away, whose fields and hill are as yet unexcavated). 

At any rate...a new topic to talk and think about.

Peace.

   

[Brianroy]

Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) -- Book 9


CHAPTER 30
'BUT Eupolemus says…David reigned, who subdued the Syrians which live beside the river Euphrates, and Commagene, and the Assyrians in Galadene, and the Phoenicians; he also made expeditions against the Edomites, and Ammonites, and Moabites, and Ituraeans, and Nabathaeans, and Nabdaeans.

'And again he made an expedition against Suron king of Tyre and Phoenicia; and compelled these nations to pay tribute to the Jews; and contracted a friendly alliance with Vaphres king of Egypt.

'And when David wished to build a temple for G-d, he entreated G-D to point out to him a place for the altar; whereupon there appeared to him an angel standing above the place, where the altar is built in Jerusalem, who commanded him not to build the temple, because he was defiled with men's blood and had passed many years in war.
'And … he bade him commit the building of the temple to his son, but himself to prepare the things pertaining to the building, gold, silver, brass, stones, cypress wood and cedar.

'And on bearing this David built ships in Aelan a city of Arabia, and sent miners to the island Drphe which lies in the Red Sea, and contains gold mines. And thence the miners transported the gold into Judaea.

'When David had reigned 40 years he gave over the government to Solomon his son, who was 12 years old, in the presence of Eli the High Priest and the twelve princes of the tribes, and delivered to him the gold and silver and brass and stone and cypress wood and cedar. Then David died, and Solomon was king, and wrote to Vaphres king of Egypt the letter which is transcribed below.

CHAPTER 31
'"KING SOLOMON TO VAPHRES KING OP EGYPT, HIS FATHER'S FRIEND, GREETING.
"KNOW thou that I have succeeded to the kingdom of my father David …send me some of thy peoples, who shall stay and help me, until we shall have completed all things that are required, according to the injunction laid on me."

CHAPTER 32 '"KING VAPHRES TO SOLOMON THE GREAT KING GREEETING.
"…I have sent thee 80,000, and have clearly explained to thee their numbers and the places from which they come:
from the Sebrithitic nome 10,000,
and from the Mendesian and Sebennytic 20,000: [each]
from the nomes of Busiris, Leonto-polis and Athribites 10,000 each.

And do thou carefully provide what things they require, and for the rest, that they may be in good order, and may be restored to their own country, as soon as they cease to be wanted."

CHAPTER 33
'"KING SOLOMON TO SURON KING OF TYRE AND SIDON AND PHOENICIA, HIS FATHER'S FRIEND, GREETING.
"KNOW thou that I have … written also to Galilee, and Samaria, and the land of Moab, and Ammon, and Gilead, to supply them with necessaries from the country every month, 10,000 cors of corn (a cor is 6 artabae) and 10,000 homers of wine (the homer of wine is 10 measures): and oil and the rest shall be supplied to them from Judaea, and from Arabia, victims for sacrifice on which to feed."

CHAPTER 34 '"SURON TO SOLOMON THE GREAT KING GREETING.
"BLESSED be God, who made the heaven and the earth, who hath chosen a worthy son of a worthy father. As soon as I read thy letter I rejoiced greatly, and gave praise to God for thy succession to the kingdom.
"And as to what thou writest concerning the men in our various peoples, I have sent thee of Tyrians and Phoenicians eighty thousand, and as chief architect I have sent thee a man of Tyre, of a Jewish mother of the tribe of David: on whatsoever thou shalt ask him of all things under heaven, relating to architecture, he will give thee advice, and will carry out the work.
"And with regard to necessary provisions, and to the servants whom I send to thee, thou wilt do well in commanding the local governors, that all things necessary he provided." '

'When Solomon with his father's friends had passed over to mount Lebanon with the Sidonians and Tyrians, he transported the timber which had previously been cut by his father to Joppa by sea, and thence by land to Jerusalem.

And he began to build the temple of God when he was 13 years old: and the work was done by the nations before-mentioned, and the twelve tribes of the Jews supplied the 160,000 with all things necessary, one tribe each month; and they laid the foundations of the temple of God, 60 cubits in length, and 60 cubits in breadth, but the breadth of the building and of the foundations was ten cubits, for so had Nathan the prophet of God commanded him.

'And they built alternately a course of stone and a beam of cypress-wood, fastening the two courses together with bronze cramps of a talent in weight. And when he had built it thus, he boarded it outside with planks of cedar and cypress, so that the stone building was not visible: and covered the temple with gold on the inside, by piling up bricks of gold 5 cubits long, and nailing them to the walls with silver nails of a talent in weight, 4 in number, and shaped like a breast.

'Thus he covered it with gold from floor to roof, and the ceiling he made of golden panels, and the roof he made of brass, that is of brass tiles, having smelted brass and poured it into moulds. He made also two columns of brass, and covered them with pure gold, a finger's breadth in thickness.
'And the columns were as high as the temple, and in size each pillar 10 cubits in circumference: and they stood one on the right side of the house, and the other on the left. He made also golden lamp-stands, weighing 10n talents each, having taken as a pattern the lamp-stand set by Moses in the tabernacle of the Testimony.

'And he set them on either side of the shrine, some on the right and some on the left. He made also 70 golden lamps, so that there might be 7 burning on each lamp-stand. He built also the gates of the temple, and adorned them with gold and silver, and roofed them over with panels of cedar and cypress.

'He made a porch also on the north side of the temple, and supported it on 48 pillars of brass. He made also a brazen laver, 20 cubits in length, and 20 cubits in width, and 5 cubits high. And upon it he made a brim projecting on the outside towards the base one cubit, in order that the priests might stand up on it, and wash their feet and hands. Also he made the bases of the laver, twelve in number, molten and chased, and of the height of a man, and set them at the hinder side beneath the laver, on the right side of the altar.

'He made also a brazen step 2 cubits high, near the laver, that the king might stand upon it, when praying, so that he might be seen by the Jewish people. Also he built the altar of 25 cubits by 20 cubits, and 12 cubits high.

'He made also 2 brazen rings of chain-work, and set them upon machines rising 20 cubits in height above the temple, and they cast a shadow over the whole temple: and to each net-work he hung 400 brass bells of a talent in weight, and the net-works he made solid, that the bells might sound, and frighten away the birds, that they might not settle upon the temple, nor nest upon the panels of the gates and porches, and defile the temple with their dung.

'He also surrounded the city Jerusalem with walls and towers and moats, and built a palace for himself.

[Moses]

Yet the Maximalists deny that Kind David or King Solomon ever existed.

[notalent]

But what is curious to me, is that we often envision Jerusalem in David's time as but a few thousands.  Where did they house these 80,000 Egyptians? 

 They would have had to be encamped in some sort of orderly, even militaristic fashion, within 4-5 miles of Jerusalem's Temple Mount (such as some encamping  in and around Bethlehem by the 4.1 mile 2nd century A.D. reckoning of its distance away, whose fields and hill are as yet unexcavated). 

The word for 1000 in Hebrew is "eleph".  It can mean 1000, but when referring to groups of people, it's a flexible term and could represent a fighting unit, like "battalion" or "platoon".  The numbers for such groupings are not fixed.  So the word is not precise.  In the context of temple workmen, it might simply refer to 80 idividual work gangs of arbitrary number.  Same goes for military formations.  An eleph might be 100 guys or 50 guys.  A contemporary example would be Civil War regiments, which were supposed to be 1000 men, but toward the end of the war, many regiments counted less than 100.

In ancient semitic culture, one eleph might be whatever fighting unit a particular clan could assemble, which would be some arbitrary number of men, from 50 to 200.  I doubt there were very many elephs that were actually 1000 men.

[Irishman]

Brianroy, I think that neither Clement of Alexandria nor Josephus (nor any early Christian writer) can contribute anything of substance to the discussion of what really happened in the 10th century BCE.

Too far separated in time, place, and perspective.

Josephus seems to have had trouble in interpreting the biblical accounts.  In those areas where he attempts the least amount of interpretation, he does fine. Yet, when he attempts to determine for himself where was “nation x”, or who was “king y”, he fails, sometimes miserably.  As an example, take Solomon’s age when he died. The Bible records that he reigned for forty years (2 Ch 10:30), which fits nicely with the events that are known to have occurred in other nations at the time, making it a viable reference. Josephus, on the other hand, states that he ruled for eighty years, when he died at 94 (Book VIII, Chapter VII, section .  This interpretation would require a complete reshuffling of the known dates of Iron Age I Egyptian Pharaohs, and would be very difficult to fit within the larger chronologies. To do so based only upon Josephus' account would be irresponsible. Josephus’ inaccuracy on purely biblical subjects can be attributed to poor scholarship concerning the source material, to a deliberate mishandling of the data, or to incomplete and inaccurate manuscripts.  It is not known which of these was the actual reason; in any case, his Antiquities of the Jews, as far as it deals with biblical texts and subjects, especially pre-Exilic texts, cannot in itself be considered reliable, as it deviates, often substantially, from the larger body of work. This deviation is readily apparent in his description of the Ark of the Covenant:

There was also an ark made, sacred to God, of wood that was naturally strong, and could not be corrupted.  This was called ERON, in our own language.  Its construction was thus:  Its length was five spans, but its breadth and height was each of them three spans.  It was covered all over with gold, both within and without; so that the wooden part was not seen. It had also a cover united to it, by golden hinges, after a wonderful manner; which cover was every way evenly fitted to it, and had no eminences to hinder its exact conjunction.  There were also two golden rings belonging to each of the longer bands, and passing through them gilt bars passed along each board, that it might thereby be moved and carried about, as occasion should require. . .  (Book III, Chapter VI, section 5)

Recalling the biblical description of the Ark of the Covenant, it is readily apparent that no hinges were mentioned--period.  In fact, no other indigenous source ever suggested that the Ark had a hinged lid, and it is unknown why Josephus recorded that it had one.  The location of the Ark was unknown at the time to those in Israel, so his description could not have been based on first-hand information.  Regardless of whether he obtained or created the inaccurate description whole cloth, it is obvious Josephus’ writings played a part in the development of the popular opinion concerning the queen of Sheba.

[Irishman]

Yet the Maximalists deny that Kind David or King Solomon ever existed.

No, that's the minimalists you're thinking of

[Moses]

You are 100% correct I made a mistake.
Yes its the Minimalists.

[Moses]

There has been speculation that the differences are due to Josephus' access to ancient texts (perhaps going back to Nehemiah) which survived the destruction of the Temple.

Feldman finds evidence that Josephus had access to 3 traditions Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
He also had access to works such as Jubilees and Dead Sea Pesharim.


Feldman, Louis H.
Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Pp. xvi +
 

[Brianroy]

Brianroy, I think that neither Clement of Alexandria nor Josephus (nor any early Christian writer) can contribute anything of substance to the discussion of what really happened in the 10th century BCE.

Too far separated in time, place, and perspective.

Scholarship, by the same argument and logic you use, is 3,000 years removed, and has nothing worthy to contribute.  They begin knowing antiquity through writer historians like Josephus.  And without Josephus, and like writers of antiquity, why should anything prior to the A.D. 1500s be believed?   According to your standards, we shouldn't.  And anything pulled out of the ground is one fabrication on the past upon another, until all antiquity is a fairy tale.  Ergo, we have no past...and thus a crack-head's delusion that we were planted here by aliens becomes of equal worth in the politically-correct acceptance analysis.   

As for me, I reject the "too far" perspective.  The question is more regarding if there was an unacceptable amount of text corruption of the sources they cite or not.  Guess what?  Those two historians (Josephus and Clement of Alexandria) were more accurate than any two modern day archaeologists regarding the Davidic era.   Modern historians and archaeologists idiotically try to re-write and reinvent the de facto years of King David into the wrong century.  The Temple went up and was completed by 1031 B.C.  A careful examination of the timeline: using the Bible,  the writings of Josephus, and the Greeks, the ancient Christians themselves, show that all these  witnesses agree...concurring that modern scholarship, in misdating the century of the Temple of Solomon, for all their long-winded and circular citations of one another, doesn't know what they're  talking about in that regard.  They need to move the reigns of David and Solomon back to the OT dates I have firmly shown as reliable and repeatedly dead on, and other data they have will then open up a whole new world of valuable insight into the past.   Insight that is now missed, because of atheists (past and present) wanting to disprove and/or deny the Bible, by purposeful and malicious misdating (in my opinion). 

[Moses]

Thats why Archeology and biblical archeology are so important.

We know the arguments of minimalists who among other reasons would like to see Israel gone.

The yang state of Israel depends on such archeological finds to support the Bible and their historic right to return to their home land.

Some Arab interests would like to disprove that David or Solomon ever existed or Solomons Temple.

Some non Arab minimalists go as far as advocating that Abraham was an invention for Jews living in Persia, as they were wealthy to show them a man of their own a patriarch who was also wealthy and left the country for Canaan.

[Irishman]

Brianroy, I think that neither Clement of Alexandria nor Josephus (nor any early Christian writer) can contribute anything of substance to the discussion of what really happened in the 10th century BCE.

Too far separated in time, place, and perspective.

Scholarship, by the same argument and logic you use, is 3,000 years removed, and has nothing worthy to contribute.  They begin knowing antiquity through writer historians like Josephus.  And without Josephus, and like writers of antiquity, why should anything prior to the A.D. 1500s be believed?   According to your standards, we shouldn't.  And anything pulled out of the ground is one fabrication on the past upon another, until all antiquity is a fairy tale.  Ergo, we have no past...and thus a crack-head's delusion that we were planted here by aliens becomes of equal worth in the politically-correct acceptance analysis.   

As for me, I reject the "too far" perspective.  The question is more regarding if there was an unacceptable amount of text corruption of the sources they cite or not.  Guess what?  Those two historians (Josephus and Clement of Alexandria) were more accurate than any two modern day archaeologists regarding the Davidic era.   Modern historians and archaeologists idiotically try to re-write and reinvent the de facto years of King David into the wrong century.  The Temple went up and was completed by 1031 B.C.  A careful examination of the timeline: using the Bible,  the writings of Josephus, and the Greeks, the ancient Christians themselves, show that all these  witnesses agree...concurring that modern scholarship, in misdating the century of the Temple of Solomon, for all their long-winded and circular citations of one another, doesn't know what they're  talking about in that regard.  They need to move the reigns of David and Solomon back to the OT dates I have firmly shown as reliable and repeatedly dead on, and other data they have will then open up a whole new world of valuable insight into the past.   Insight that is now missed, because of atheists (past and present) wanting to disprove and/or deny the Bible, by purposeful and malicious misdating (in my opinion).

Well, when I say that, it has to be with the stipulation that the biblical texts have to be given preferencial weight when compared or contrasted to later commentaries (or histories) about them - i.e. Josephus, et al.

Josephus has never impressed me when it comes to veering from the biblical texts. He's never seemed to have a good reason for it. Now where I do find him helpful is when he reports on his own time.

[Moses]

Josephus was Interpreter and not translator.

As Interpreter he used other materials to give in his view correct meaning to the events in the biblical accounts.

As historian he used Biblical and non Biblical materials to interpret events.