John Gibson

June 10th, 2022

Introduction

Traditionally the scholarly view is that Solomon borrowed heavily from the surrounding Canaanite traditions in the construction of his Temple, making it a hybrid Caananite-Israelite structure. Certainly there is no doubt that the physical architecture could support this hypothesis, but what of the function that the Temple served? I argue that this function of the Temple was an extension of the Tabernacle first found in Exodus. Similarities between the layout, accessories, chambers, and design of the two structures can be found around every corner, such as equivalents of the Bronze Sea, the Holy of Holies, the societal function that it played for the elite of each time period, and the ritualistic or theological function that it served in each time period as well. By examining the primary sources from which we derive our information on these two structures, we can see where the scholarly viewpoint is supported and where it is opposed by scriptural evidence. My argument is that Solomon’s Temple was a symbolic extension of the Tabernacle of Moses, as opposed to certain scholarly views that it was heavily influenced by Canaanite traditions. Evidence of this can be found in both its function and its design, showing that to the Israelites the Temple was an evolved form of the Tabernacle that emerged after the nomadic tribes settled down.

Primary Sources

First, we must establish the primary sources from which we can glean our information about these two structures from. Due to the scarcity of the archaeological records, our primary sources are purely textual. With regards to the Tabernacle, Exodus and the Torah is our best source, and when it comes to the Temple, the Deuteronomistic History (especially 1 Kings) are central. When it comes to Exodus, not much is known about the origins of the text other than that which has been preserved by religious tradition. The earliest copies of Exodus were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating them to well before the first century AD, but tradition dates them further back. According to tradition, Moses is the author of Exodus in both the Jewish and Christian religions. If a literal interpretation is to be carried out, the book would have been written sometime during the 40 years of wandering the wilderness that the Israelites did after crossing the Red Sea. This text, whatever its origins, is important to us because it is the primary piece of evidence that, one, the tabernacle ever existed, and two, that we can piece together a fairly accurate view of the structure and its function in the Israelite society. The other primary source, the first Book of Kings, is believed to have been written or revised by the Deuteronomistic Historian, the person believed to have compiled the segment of the Old Testament known as the Deuteronomistic History. Who this exact person is cannot be stated for certain, but traditions in both the Jewish and Christian faiths date the text to around 600-550 BC, and attribute its words to the writings of the prophet Jeremiah. This source gives us the most detailed look at an ancient building of this time period at all, describing in specific detail nearly every aspect of the Temple. With such vivid and particular descriptions of each structure, we can easily compare and contrast the two to outline their similarities and differences.

Similarities and Differences

Structurally speaking, the two buildings shared many similarities. First, let us look at what certain scholars have to say regarding the topic. Michael D. Coogan, in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, compares the Temple to the Garden of Eden, writing that “the symbolic imagery of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem both informs and is informed by the description of the Garden of Eden. This garden is Yahweh’s plantation, in which like a country gentleman he regularly strolls in the cool late afternoon”. This analysis makes sense on several levels. First, both the Garden of Eden and the Temple of Solomon were regarded as the literal dwelling places of Yahweh, but mainly I think the similarities are most intense when we look inward at what is in the center of these two places: something holy, powerful, and forbidden. At the center of the Garden of Eden is of course the Tree of Wisdom, and in the center of Solomon’s Temple lies the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Covenant was held. Both of these inner sanctums had immensely holy properties, and were also forbidden from being accessed by humans or non essential humans in the case of the Temple. Disregarding these rules would have dangerous consequences, such as death, in both cases.

Other scholars have wildly different views. The prominent alternative theory to what is proposed by Coogan is actually the opposite of Coogan’s statement. This view takes an alternative look at the structure, and claims that the Temple is heavily influenced not by the Genesis stories of Eden but by surrounding Canaanite traditions. Scholars like Jon Levenson write that “in short, the Temple was a foreign body propelled into an Israel hitherto pure”. Furthermore, “scholars like Anderson call the Temple ‘an invasion of Canaanite culture’ and Gottwald argues it is a ‘Canaanite-Yahwistic Hybrid’”.

I do not doubt any of these scholars’ claims, and agree that the Temple most likely did take inspiration from both the cultural heritage of Genesis that would have been central to its architects and the influence of their surrounding Canaanite neighbors would be statistically likely as well. I think, however, that the main symbology and function of the Temple lies not with allusions to Genesis or architectural and functional similarities to Canaan, but with the extension of the Tabernacle, the structure that served many of the same roles as the Temple did while the tribes of Israel were still nomadic and not centered out of Jerusalem yet. 

A close examination of the primary sources relevant to certain aspects of the Temple and Tabernacle will now be conducted around four central themes of the respective buildings. These four themes are the Bronze Sea, the Holy of Holies, the societal function of the structures, and the ritualistic function of the structures. These will all be explained more later on, but these four pillars are the primary means by which I will compare the two structures to highlight how they played similar roles to society and religion in many different ways.

The Bronze Sea

The Bronze (or sometimes the Molten) Sea was a large cauldron of water situated in the Temple courtyard, between the door and the inner sanctum. Being that the Bronze Sea was used to store the water used for ceremonial and cleansing purposes, we can look back to Exodus, specifically chapter thirty, and find parallels in the structure of the Tabernacle. In First Kings, the Deuteronomistic Historian explains the construction of the Bronze Sea, how wide it should be, what metals it should be cast of, and other details, but does not specify its exact purpose. That explanation can be found in 2nd Chronicles chapter four, where it is stated that the water is meant for baths (and other purification purposes that ritual would necessitate). Turning our attention to the Torah and the Book of Exodus, we find that chapter thirty describes a similar feature, only this time in the structure of the Tabernacle, not the Temple. Exodus 30:17-21 reads: “The LORD spoke to Moses, ‘You shall make a bronze basin with a bronze stand for washing. You shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it; with the water Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. When they go into the tent of meeting or when they come near the altar to minister to make an offering by fire to the LORD, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die: it shall be a perpetual ordinance for them, for him, and for his descendants throughout their generations.” This instruction to Moses, according to tradition, establishes a precedent that this particular cleansing ritual must last throughout generations of Aaron’s descendants (or, the Priesthood in other words). It also sounds just like the purpose of the Bronze Sea: A large bronze container of water, set between the entrance and the inner sanctum of the structure, used for ritualistic cleansing purposes. William Shaw Caldecott, a nineteenth century expert on the Temple, went so far as to outright state that the Bronze Sea is a replacement for the laver of the Tabernacle. The attributive similarities between the Tabernacle and the Temple dont stop at simply a bronze cauldron, which leads us to perhaps the defining similarity that makes any comparison even possible: The Holy of Holies or the Inner Sanctum of each structure.

The Holy of Holies

The Holy of Holies, or the Inner Sanctum in some translations, is the common denominator in terms of theological comparison. Originating with the structure of the Tabernacle, in the Book of Exodus Moses is instructed very specifically how to construct the tent. Once done with the tent, he was tasked with making a curtain, the purpose of which is stated in Exodus 31:33-34: “You shall hang the curtain under the clasps and bring the ark of the covenant in there, within the curtain, and the curtain shall separate for you the holy place from the most holy place. You shall put the cover on the ark of the covenant in the most holy place.” 

The construction of the Holy of Holies is also attested to in the construction of Solomon’s Temple by the Deuteronomistic Historian in 1 Kings 6:16: “He partitioned off twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with cedar boards from floor to ceiling to form within the temple an inner sanctuary, the Most Holy Place.” In both structures, the Holy of Holies was the deepest and most guarded part of the structure, and it was, in both cases, where the Israelites stored the Ark of the Covenant, meaning that theologically it was considered to be where God literally resided between the cherubim.

The similarities in structure do not stop there, but it is important to understand what these similarities actually meant in terms of Israelite society and religion, as the structures had significant purposes and functions for the Israelites.

Societal and Religious Functions

As we have already seen from the primary sources, the principal function of the tabernacle and the Temple was, religiously, to serve as the dwelling place of Yahweh, and the storage room meant to protect the ark of the covenant. It also fulfilled ceremonial demands of ritual purification for the class of the priesthood, both a societal and religious function. In terms of its societal impact on the Israelites, the tabernacle and the Temple were the centers of the faith, and were controlled by the Priests, or descendants of Aaron, effectively making them the elite upper class of Israelite society at that time. The tabernacle and the Temple were so important to the religion of Israel and Judea that, after the destruction of the rebuilt Temple by the Romans, the entire religion of Judaism was heavily reformed into what we now call Rabinnic Judaism. This importance also caused issues that we discussed in this course with regards to practicing Judaism during the Babylonian Exile, and the types of discourse that arose due to those circumstances.

Conclusion

There are several ways by which scholars study the structure of Solomon’s Temple. Some, like Coogan, attribute its design to influences from Genesis and the story of Eden, while other scholars like Levenson, Anderson, and Gottwald attribute a heavy Canaanite influence on the structure. By examining the precursor to the Temple, the tabernacle, we can find many important similarities like the Bronze Sea, a device used by the priesthood for ritual purification and cleansing ceremonies, the Holy of Holies, the resting place of God and the store room for the ark of the covenant, as well as similar societal and religious functions. It therefore follows that the Temple, like Caldecott states, is an extension of the tabernacle and is therefore heavily Israelite in origin, not Canaanite although the architectural specifics and mechanisms of construction may have been heavily borrowed from the technology of the Canaanites. Although there are several ways to study the structure of Solomon’s Temple, it must be done with a complete understanding of the tabernacle, the tent which would eventually become a Temple.

Bibliography

The English Standard Version Study Bible

Jon Levenson: The Temple and the World

Jon Levenson: Creation and the Persistence of Evil

Mark Smith: The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1

Michael Coogan: The Oxford History of the Biblical World

NRSV Oxford Study Bible

The Orthodox Study Bible

W. Shaw Caldecott: The Molten Sea (contained in the 1915 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)