Hiram built Solomon's temple.

by peacefulpete 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  other threads recently touched upon the temple description in the OT. I've made comments to the effect that the temple designs mirrors that of other cults of the region. Additionally i wondered if the temple ever existed in the 8th-9th century at all, given the lack of archaeological evidence for it and the mythical characters and obvious embellishments in the story of it's construction. Looking again at the stories in 1Kings and 2chron I'm wondering something a little different. As the stories of the construction are read we find the influential and rich Phoenicians playing a very dominant role, why? According to the story the Phoenician King Hiram providing the cedars,the design,the purple dyes, the masons, much of the general labor workmen etc. Archaeology informs us that the identical temple plan with the same two pillar entrance and most holy chamber made of cedar with gold overlay decorated with purple curtain, cherubim (winged bull/lion/man creatures) and pomagranates was found in Tyre of the Phoenicians. In fact it was Hiram King of Phoenicia that built this wonder of the ancient world elaborating upon the basic plan of older temples of the region. The temple of Tyre was originally dedicated to Melqart, one of the Baals. In later years it was rededicated to Hercules. It existed for Herodotus who was awed by it's grandour even hundreds of years later. The two pillars at the entrance represented Astarte and Melqart the patron gods of Phoenicia at the time. The gold was considered the blessed metal of Melqart, the wood pillar represented the godess. Interestingly the story continues to relate that Solomon in his old age turns to worshipping PHOENICIAN gods. Also interesting is that the story has Solomon giving 20 cities to the "idol worshipping" Phoenicians as repayment for the temple. Now I asked myself why would a Yahwist King hand over his subjects to a pagan king? It all smells funny.

  I'm aware of history revisionism in the OT. Often the theological opinion of the Yahwahist priests returning from Babylon were artificially cast back into the mythical past to add weight to their desired reforms. I ask now if we might be seeing an outstanding example in the temple story. It seems to me believable that the "Solomonic" temple was in fact a description of the glorious temple to Melqart built by Hiram at Tyre! Perhaps (and reasonably so) at a later time the tribe/kingdom of Israel did make a modest temple in keeping with the economic realities of the area. They likely used the same floor plan suggesting that they were yet worshipping the gods of their neighbors (Baal Melqart and Astarte/Ashera) along side YHWH. The story about giving 20 cities to the Phoenicians seems to be simply a legend explaining the Phoenician presence in that area at the time of writing or an explanation as to how Israel lost control over the region.

  Thoughts?
• 

  gitasatsangha

  Keeping in mind a bunch of iconoclastic, backward sheephearding Hebrew tribesmen were not likely to have many archetects, stonemasons, and the like, among them, its reasonable to assume Hiram or whoever, built them a temple as he damn well pleased.
• 

  Leolaia

  That's a very interesting idea, and not so outrageous as it might seem. Bear in mind that Psalm 29 is one of the oldest psalms in the Bible (commonly thought to linguistically and stylistically date to the tenth or nineth century B.C.), it specifically refers to the enthronement of God in his temple (e.g. "The god of glory thunders, in his palace everything cries, 'Glory!' Yahweh sits enthroned on the Flood, Yahweh sits enthroned as a king forever," Psalm 29:3b, 9c, 10), and thus was used in early cultic practice in the Temple. And yet this psalm was clearly transplanted from Phoenicia, as it has local Phoenician imagery (ceders, forests) and place names (Sirion, Lebanon, Kadesh), and characterizes Yahweh with the storm and bovine language of Baal. Whatever the tradition of a Phoenician origin of the Temple in 1 Kings, Psalm 29 clearly goes along with it.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Thanks for giving the idea some consideration Leolaia.
  
  Gita...the question is whether Hiram built the Israelites a temple at all. Were the later priests familiar with the Melqart temple and importing it into their quasihistorical narrative? It is my opinion (based upon that of a growing number of researchers) that Solomon is a literary creation. The all wise world famous king whose name means "peace" has eluded history and archaeology entirely. There is no evidence of a city were jerusalem sits at this early a period. Why then assume there was a temple built during the 11th-10th century bc at all? It seems more likely from what we know that they were in such a position only a century or two later. We are reading myth.
• 

  Narkissos

  According to archaeological evidence, Jerusalem is a very old city; it certainly had several sanctuaries. When it became the capital of Judah (not Israel!) one of those had to become the royal temple. What I hold as legendary is the "United Kingdom" picture, with Solomon, the "great" Temple, extended territory... and subsequent schism to account for the reality, i.e. the two historical kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah (Jerusalem). As for the Biblical description of this fictional Solomonic Temple, Peacefulpete's explanation is quite compelling to me. Perhaps some retrojection from the post-exilic Temple (and its fantastic variant in Ezekiel) may be involved as well in the detail of the description in 1 Kings 6-7.
• 

  gitasatsangha

  Pete the only thing I have heard of as evidence that Solomon had carved out some sort of Kingdom are diggings of various chariot stables (and I cannot quote a source) that seemed to indicate a local military build up during that time.

  I tend to think that if Tyre had built this amazing temple that there would be other records from it apart from Biblical ones.
• 

  peacefulpete

  gita..the so called Solomon's Stables in Jerusalem are in fact substructure pillars for Herod's temple 900 years later. The Solomon's stables in Megiddo have been more carefully dated to late 9th-8th century. 150-200 years too late to have been "Solomons". Furthur the Stables are not stables at all. They are storhouses possibly associated with the production of opium. There is nothing at the site to suggest the precence of horses. In the 1920's when this place was uncovered, everyone (that wanted funding) believed the bible was history and made their discoveries fit the bible stories. Archaeology is still waking from this delusion. Solomon is unknown and his reign is not allowed by what we know of the past.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Narkissos..from what I'm reading, there was only a small town intermittantly inhabited prior to the 9th century at the Jerusalem site. There is no evidence that it was inhabited in the tenth century. It was only after the Assyrians destroyed lachish (701) does jerusalem begin it's growth to becoming a real city with large buildings.
• 

  gumby

  Hebrew Ignorance of Building Techniques
  The Hebrews never had the enough opportunity to master the art and science of building in Egypt. They were hardened in the desert and in battle but lacked the know-how to build palaces worthy of kings or a Temple worthy of God, the Ark of the Covenant, the Tablets of the Law and the Pentateuch of Moses. These important items of the Hebrew religion were treasured in a tabernacle (tent) up till this point in time.

  Phoenicians/Canaanites Help Kings David and SolomonWhen David was chosen king and, thereafter, Solomon; they were in need of artisans, architects, craftsmen, builders and building material especially wood and precious metals to build a temple and palace. The best known and most gifted people to fulfill the kings' needs were the Phoenicians. Hence, both kings sought and received Phoenician know-how and materials.

  Gumby....* who has just completed a perfect copy and paste job cuz he can't remember ANYTHING he reads*
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hey Gumby. The writer of those quotes appears to uncitically accept the historicity of David,Solomon and a temple. Far too few resources have kept up-to-date with research. To accept these we are forced to conjure up a powerful and fabulously wealthy state from thin air.
  
  As an aside, I was thinking about the Egyptian pyramids and how recent archaeology has revealed that the proect was done by religiously motivated pilgrams not slave labor as earlier believed. Yet notice that according to the story the only labor provided by Solomon for theconstruction were nonIsraelite slaves. The numbers are ridiculously too large for this size building and as I said earlier there is nothing to suggest any of this happened. However, it might have seemed fitting and timely to the story tellers to cast themselves as the conquerers and masters of the past.