The Temple of Solomon

This volume represents the proceedings of the third BICANE Colloquium* held at Sidney Sussex College in Cambridge from March 26-27, 2011 (see Figure 1, p. vi, and 2 p. x below).The third BICANE colloquium focussed on two key figures: Shishak and Solomon. The Old Testament describes a period of great prosperity and strength for Israel during the reigns of kings David and Solomon. The alleged ‘golden age’ ended – as the biblical narrative relates – because of oppressive measures used to work the people and the machinations of an Egyptian pharaoh referred to as ‘King Shishak’. He fostered Jeroboam I, who led a revolt in the northern region (Israel) and in the 5th year of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam, invaded Judah c. 925 BC, attacked its strongholds and took tribute of the treasures from the Temple built by Solomon. Hardly a single point of the biblical story has remained undisputed in recent years.

Egyptian texts are notorious for not referring to enemy or subject kings by name, to the extent of sometimes not mentioning the existence of such rulers. Yet it has become increasingly clear – from a range of evidence including results from recent art-historical analyses – that the Egyptian New Kingdom ‘empire’ in Syro-Palestine was largely controlled through a system of vassal rulers. Archaeological evidence can be used to
posit the existence of a local dynasty based at Jerusalem during the time of the late 19th and early 20th Dynasties, c. 1200 BC on conventional dating. The monumental architecture there shows that there was an organised state, while connections with Egypt are shown by the fragments of an apparent Egyptianising building (palace or tomb?) and other Egyptian objects. If we allow this hypothetical dynasty to have ruled a wider territory, including Megiddo and the Jordan Valley then a surprising series of parallels appears with the activities of the Davidic dynasty. It is acknowledged that the plan and furnishing of Solomon’s Temple belong to a Late Bronze tradition. Are the figures of David and Solomon based on memories of a Late Bronze dynasty centred on Jerusalem of is there something fundamentally wrong with the archaeological dating based on Egyptian chronology?

The tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon were intended as replicas of the cosmos, the true heavenly temple of God and every single detail aimed at a faithful symbolic reproduction of its model. All scriptural descriptions of an earthly or heavenly temple from Exodus to Revelation are perfectly consistent with a specific cosmography. The symbolic meanings of the construction and furnishing details of the Tabernacle are cleared and several cruces interpretum both in OT and NT find here an explanation for the first time.

Le descrizioni della presenza di Dio in cielo e in terra pervadono i due Testamenti. Benché mai esplicita, resta sottintesa una cosmografia, quale patrimonio comune dell'agiografo e dei suoi lettori, garanzia della comprensibilità e della pregnanza emotiva delle immagini utilizzate. Quale fosse esattamente questa cosmografia non è spiegato nei testi biblici, forse perché ovvio per i lettori oppure perché il linguaggio non doveva essere così esplicito da oscurare la natura analogica e teologica di queste descrizioni. La perdita di questo patrimonio culturale è causa di incertezze esegetiche che affliggono anche i commentatori del Nuovo Testamento e soprattutto quelli della Lettera agli Ebrei e dell'Apocalisse. Le fonti veterotestamentarie e giudaiche (fra cui Filone e Giuseppe Flavio) mostrano che per gli antichi ebrei cieli e terra formavano un unico cosmico tempio creato per lode di Dio e che la configurazione geometrica e gli arredi liturgici della Dimora di Mosè prima e del tempio di Gerusalemme poi ne erano una simbolica riproduzione in scala. Questo articolo illustra l'estrema accuratezza di questa corrispondenza, rendendo conto per la prima volta del significato simbolico di molti dettagli La topografia cosmica così acquisita trova conferma nelle fonti neotestamentarie e si rivela utilissima per chiarire alcuni dettagli poco comprensibili dell'Apocalisse.

King Solomon is, as is well known, an important protagonist of Jewish literature, both canonical and extra-canonical. We witness a slow literary evolution of the character, who, starting from the old-testamentary references, slowly takes on the status of magician and exorcist. In the first centuries AD this transformation is consolidated, as we can see from the Testament of Solomon, from a passage in Flavius Josephus, and from the long series of magical amulets in which Solomon is represented on horseback while piercing a female demon. These amulets originate in relation to the seal of Solomon, the magical ring quoted in the Testament, through which Solomon takes control of the demons. He uses these demons, properly chained, to be assisted in the construction of the Temple of Jerusalem. The demons are locked up and sealed inside amphorae. This tradition will give rise to the Islamic legend of the genius in the lamp, at the service of its master. In the West this tradition will give rise to a vast magic literature placed under the aegis of Solomon. These are often real grimoires, that, in imitation of the Testament of Solomon, list angels, demons and magic words to chain them. Tradition that flows into the history of Faust. In the Islamic world, while on one hand the character of Solomon appears in the Qur'an, his tradition is well present in all pre and post-Koranic literature. In the Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa' (the Epistles of the Brethren of Purity, an esoterical society that arose within Ismailism, probably around the 10th century) there is a large section dedicated to Solomon, in which the Judeo-Christian tradition of the master of the demons is resumed, but a metaliterary critique of this tradition is also made. The last example of Solomon in this oriental tradition will be the story of Kipling "The Butterfly that Stamped".

The construction of the Temple was a massive event in the history of Israel. Many of the sedentary peoples that early Hebrews came into contact with in Canaan had a history of building temples and shrines to their deities. The Hebrews apparently did not (although nothing is known of how they worshipped in Egypt). It is recorded in the Bible that foreigners were used to construct the Temple. An important question is why. Various passages in the Bible make references to worship at high places (which had various structures) as well as a holy tent. Before moving on to the construction of the Temple these two types of semi-permanent/temporary structures will be considered.

Juan Antonio Ramírez and the iconography of place.

Juan Antonio Ramírez (1948–2009) is one of the most interesting personalities in Spanish art history. One of his main professional interests was the iconography of place (la iconografía del lugar). Ramírez focused on the visualisation of fantastic and utopian buildings, architectural ekphrasis and film environments. He studied the development of the human architectural imagination and its sources and limits, as well as how it manifests itself and moves between the text, the image and the actual constructions. The article presented, Prostor a fantazie. Fantastická literatura versus fantastická architektura (Space and fantasy. Fantastic literature versus fantastic architecture, 1985), is the first translation into Czech of Ramírez’s work. It sums up several themes to which Ramírez devoted separate studies. Ramírez here compares fantastic literature with fantastic architecture and categorises possible kinds of interaction. He comes close to the methods of literary topology, analysing the descriptions of surroundings in several works of literature and showing how the fantastic aspect is demonstrated in them. He also devotes himself to the phenomenon of Solomon’s Temple, and to attempts to reconstruct it (by, for example, J. B. Villalpando) that originated as a creative association of Biblical texts, archaeological knowledge and architectural practice of the period. Ramírez also mentions the influence of these reconstructions on the settings of some Renaissance paintings. In conclusion, he examines architectural utopias in fantastic illustrations for sci-fi journals of the first half of the 20th century in which the influence of contemporary architectural production of Modernism and art deco appears. Ramírez establishes that his concept of the iconography of the place makes it possible to study spheres apparently very distant in time and genre. Ramírez’s iconography of place is an
until-now scarcely used perspective in the history of art that not only provides new themes but also makes it possible to look at established works in a more complex way.

solomon and moses pictures on temples walls in upper Egypt, 7 temples so far telling King Solomon's legend with the devil and the two fishes، Also in British museum room 61
قصه سليمان والشيطان والسمكتين علي محاريب في الاقصر واسوان
سبعه حتي الان وفي المتحف البريطاني غرفه ٦١

Isaac Newton remains one of the greatest scientists of all times, however, Newton published very little in his life but wrote many hundreds of manuscripts that amount to millions of words. The bulk of these manuscripts are on alchemy, prophecy and theology. It is often said that his writings on Solomon’s Temple was written in his old age or that he had written it after a nervous breakdown in 1693. However, the span of the dates of the manuscripts written on Solomon’s Temple does not support this. His work on Solomon’s Temple spanned over 50 years and many of these manuscripts were written before 1693. The purpose of this book is to put into context Newton and his times by demonstrating that his study of the Temple was not an isolated or atypical inquiry but this was an extremely popular topic at the time for academics and models of the Temple were displayed to the general public. The book also contains a model which has been reconstruction from the Newton’s description of the Temple. This book “walks” the reader through the Temple as Newton would have perceived it. To travel though the Temple, its structure, its symmetry, and its proportional elegance is to steal a glimpse into the mind of Isaac Newton.

Il libro analizza il complesso e simbolico percorso del salomonismo come fenomeno che investe la cultura religiosa, filosofica e architettonica del mondo non solo occidentale e non solo cristiano. Nella tradizione giudaico-cristiana Salomone, obbedendo alla volontà divina, costruisce il Tempio utilizzando, per tracciare la pianta, le stesse proporzioni dettate da Dio a Mosè per il Tabernacolo. Dio, quindi, è il vero architetto e si serve di Salomone come artefice dell’edificio. Per questo il Tempio di Salomone ha sempre avuto una straordinaria attrazione su teologi, storici e artisti come microcosmo progettato dalla intelligenza divina e modello di perfezione artistica. Dall’antica Gerusalemme alle chiese latinoamericane, passando per il Baldacchino di San Pietro al Vaticano, il Tempio di Salomone a Gerusalemme e le sue colonne propongono, quindi un paradigna costruttivo che raggiunge il suo culmine nell’arte sacra del barocco. La ricerca è centrata su due temi che in alcuni casi divergono ma spesso si intrecciano: da una parte il Tempio di Salomone e l’influenza che l’idea di questo ha esercitato sull’architettura e la teoria architettonica, dall’altra le sue colonne, o meglio le leggendarie colonne “salomoniche” o tortili. Nei differenti capitoli, vengono analizzati gli sviluppi del mito e le immagini ad esso collegate, dove il Tempio, o meglio la sua idea, e le colonne costituiscono temi diversi e complementari, che si separano quando la colonna tortile, o salomonica, diviene elemento autonomo, che si allontana dal significato simbolico e religioso e raggiunge una codificazione propria nel sistema degli ordini architettonici. L’articolazione del volume consente di conferire una logica alla sterminata casistica di documenti visivi e letterari. La suddivisione degli argomenti ricostruisce un percorso coerente che dall’antichità arriva alla fine del Settecento seguendo un itinerario cronologico e una verifica delle fonti. Nei differenti capitoli viene esaminato il mito del Tempio e la sua immagine attraverso i periodi più controversi e oscuri, per accertarne e verificarne la continuità. Nel libro vengono così affrontate discipline e tematiche molto diverse, lontane nel tempo e nello spazio; dall’analisi testuale delle fonti antiche (Bibbia, Mishnah, testi classici) all’esegesi della Controriforma e dell’epoca barocca, dall’analisi dei dati archeologici del bacino Mediterraneo alla verifica dell’uso delle colonne nell’architettura e nelle arti figurative fino al XVIII secolo. Viene delineato per la prima volta in maniera unitaria il quadro delle conoscenze e delle interpretazioni sull’architettura del “Tempio” per eccellenza, facendo interagire molti diversi livelli di indagine - dall’archeologia, alla storia dell’architettura e dell’arte fino alla storia delle religioni - che nel loro complesso fanno chiarezza su storia, leggenda e fortuna, come recita il sottotitolo, di un paradigma di edificazione divina e dei suoi elementi costitutivi, e in particolare sulle colonne salomoniche definite da Germain Bazin “emblema del’arte sacra barocca”.

2Ki 25:27  And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;
2Ki 25:28  And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon;
2Ki 25:29  And changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life.
2Ki 25:30  And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.
This observation and the inability of Noth to satisfactorily explain the significance of it in regard to the purpose of the Deuteronomist has led to scholars challenging the Noth's explanation of the purpose of the Dtr in compiling the Deuteronomistic history. This action of Evil Merodach (Amel Marduk ) is that of a man to a man indeed a king of kings to a king. That is it falls into the realm of human activity not the activity of inorganic material on inorganic substance in a test tube. Historians or even scientists can not repeat this event. It is a unique onetime event. They cannot put King Jehoiachin into the test tube with other kings, and have Amel Marduk exert pressure on the prison until the head of Jehoiachin rises to the surface, leaving behind his fellow prisoner kings, as a scientist might do with oil and water. As historians like Cogan or literary critics like Lemche, students of the Bible have to deal with Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim, is he a fictional minor character of the great saga of the history of Israel which some redactor in the Hellenistic period added to the end of the epic novel of the history of Israel? Lemche looks at the stories of his great ancestor Solomon eighteen generations removed through the prism of his personal presuppositions:
"That is the issue we have today: namely, the question of whether the Bible in its stories is talking about history and the past at all. Our argument is not that the Bible exaggerates the exploits of David, nor is it that Solomon was never as rich as the Bible makes him out to be. We are not dealing with issues of skepticism here. Rather, we are trying to say that the Bible's stories of Saul, David and Solomon are not about history at all".  Suddenly Jehoiachin becomes a character with no past. He is not part of the second dynasty of Israel, from the great בית דוד evidenced in the inscription from Tel Dan and ancient songs difficult to understand  around 1025BC  in Hebron, Israel. But in another paradigm he is a historical man, born on at exact date , reigning at exact age, eighteen in an exact year for an exact period of time three months and ten days. He out lived all the other kings of Judah he is the last king of the house of Judah the last surviving king of the house of David. The question then that requires answering is: Why the author of Kings tells us that in the thirty seventh year of his exile Jehoiachin was exalted to a place higher than the other prisoner kings in Babylon?
Our thesis is in this paper argues from the starting point of the blessing of Solomon that a major purpose, if not the primary purpose of the Solomon of the Deuteronomist is to demonstrate, through the King and the people of Yahuah, (Israel/Judah) to all the peoples (amim) of the earth that YHWH is the Unique Elohim. There may be many other gods elohim acherim but Yahuah alone is the God Haelohim.