Science, philology and theology in Isaac Newton's Temple of Solomon : prolegomena ad lexici prophetici partem secundam manuscript: Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam manuscript [1 ed.] 8400097696, 9788400097691

Citation preview

NUEVA RO MA

Isaac Newton

Science, Philology and Theology in Isaac Newton´s Temple of Solomon (Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam manuscript)

Critical edition, translation and study by

Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS

About the pagination of this eBook Due to the unique page numbering of this book, the electronic pagination of the eBook does not match the pagination of the printed version. To navigate the text, please use the electronic Table of Contents that appears alongside the eBook or the Search function.

SCIENCE, PHILOLOGY AND THEOLOGY IN ISAAC NEWTON´S TEMPLE OF SOLOMON

NUEVA ROMA Bibliotheca Graeca et Latina Aevi Posterioris 39

Comité Editorial Pedro Bádenas de la Peña, CSIC (Director) Inmaculada Pérez Martín, CSIC (Secretaria) Luis Alberto de Cuenca y Prado (CSIC) José Martínez Gázquez (Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona) Joan Carles Marset (Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona) Manuel Rojas Gabriel (Universidad de Extremadura) Jesús María Nieto Ibáñez (Universidad de León) Antonio Caballos Rufino (Universidad de Sevilla) Consejo Asesor Antonio Bravo García (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Natalio Fernández Marcos (CSIC) Yorgos Kejayoglu (Universidad Aristóteles de Salónica) Alessandro Musco (Universidad de Palermo) Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez (CSIC) Johannes Niehoff-Panayotidis (Universidad Libre de Berlín) Aurelio Pérez Jiménez (Universidad de Málaga) Patricia Varona Codeso (Universidad de Valladolid) Juan Signes Codoñer (Universidad de Valladolid) John Victor Tolan (Universidad de Nantes)

ISAAC NEWTON

SCIENCE, PHILOLOGY AND THEOLOGY IN ISAAC NEWTON´S TEMPLE OF SOLOMON (Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam manuscript) Critical edition, translation and study by Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez

NUEVA ROMA 39

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS MADRID 2013

Reservados todos los derechos por la legislación en materia de Propiedad Intelectual. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro, incluido el diseño de la cubierta, puede reproducirse, almacenarse o transmitirse en manera alguna por medio ya sea electrónico, químico, óptico, informático, de grabación o de fotocopia, sin permiso previo por escrito de la editorial. Las noticias, los asertos y las opiniones contenidos en esta obra son de la exclusiva responsabilidad del autor o autores. La editorial, por su parte, solo se hace responsable del interés científico de sus publicaciones. La edición de este libro se ha realizado en el marco del Proyecto de Investigación FFI2010-19084. Primera edición crítica: 1996 (reimpr. en 1998) Segunda edición crítica, revisada con nuevo estudio: 2009 Tercera edición crítica (inglés), revisada: 2013 Catálogo general de publicaciones oficiales: http://publicacionesoficiales.boe.es EDITORIAL CSIC: http://editorial.csic.es (correo: [email protected])

© CSIC © Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez (ed. crítica, est. y trad. del texto latino) © Del prólogo, Luis Alberto de Cuenca © De la traducción español-inglés, Patricia Walsh Imagen de cubierta: fragmento del plano de «El Templo de Salomón», según Isaac Newton. Fuente: Ms. 434, cortesía de la Babson Collection, fol. 9 de esta edición. NIPO: 723-13-043-8 e-NIPO: 723-13-044-3 ISBN (CSIC): 978-84-00-09769-1 e-ISBN: 978-84-00-09770-7 ISBN (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona): 978-84-490-4210-2 ISBN (Universidad de León): 978-84-9773-662-6 ISBN (Universidad de Extremadura): 978-84-7723-655-9 ISBN (Universidad de Sevilla): 978-84-472-1499-0 Depósito Legal: M-35199-2013 Maquetación, impresión y encuadernación: Industrias Gráficas CARO, S.L. Impreso en España. Printed in Spain En esta edición se ha utilizado papel ecológico sometido a un proceso de blanqueado TCF, cuya fibra procede de bosques gestionados de forma sostenible.

To Pedro Poveda, a tireless propellant of the dialogue between science and beliefs and to whom I am greatly indebted for my dedication to the research on these issues

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

PROLOGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XV

The scientific and cultural repercussions of our edition . . . . . . .

XV

Evolution of research in the field of editions in the last years . .

XVII

SCIENCE, PHILOLOGY AND THEOLOGY IN ISAAC NEWTON’S TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. PRELIMINARY STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII I. THE CONTEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPT PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI PARTEM SECUNDAM (scientific and theological aspects) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIII The corpus of Newton’s unpublished theological manuscripts and the eventful history of their transmission . XXIV A distorted image of the thinking and the work of Newton . XXVII The incomprehensible heterodoxy of a religious man? . . . . . . XXXII Interpretation of the prophecies and human history . . . . . . . XXXV Science and interpretation of the prophecies . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXIX The Temple of Solomon in the scientific and theological work of Isaac Newton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XL

Notes for an evaluation of the scientific and theological thinking of Isaac Newton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLIV II. EDITIO PRINCEPS OF THE MANUSCRIPT: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS (critical and philological aspects) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XLVIII The Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam, a difficult and complex manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L

Textual criticism problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LII

The manuscript: its physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . .

LII

Problems of composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LV

X

CONTENTS Literary criticism problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIX

The relation of the Prolegomena with the Lexicon Propheticum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIX

The use of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LXI

Newton’s philological work in the commentary on the vision of Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LXV

Indications for an approximate dating of the Prolegomena . .

LXIX

Editorial intervention or loyalty to the text? A difficult distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LXXI

The editing criteria of the Latin text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LXXI

On the title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXIII On the numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXIII On the insertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXIV On the reference to the plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXIV On the content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXV Some observations on the translation of the Latin text . . LXXV FACSIMILE OF THE MANUSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LXXVII Explanations of the facsimile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LXXIX Reproduction of the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

EDITIO PRINCEPS OF THE MANUSCRIPT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

Explanations of the edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

Latin text and English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

ABBREVIATIONS AND TYPOGRAPHIC SYMBOLS IN THE EDITION . . . . . . . . .

145

From books of the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145

From other authors and works in the Latin text and in the English text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146

Other abbreviations and typographic symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS QUOTED IN THE EDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

I. Editions of works of Isaac Newton quoted in the preliminary study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

II. Selection of studies and catalogues of manuscripts . . . . . . . .

150

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the first and the second edition of this work I expressed my gratitude to a number of people who, in one way or another, had helped me. Although brevity does not permit that I list them all, I remember them again with gratitude. In this third edition, I especially value and appreciate that Luis Alberto de Cuenca should have wished to enrich it with a prologue expressing all his literary style and the bonds of friendship which join us. To Pedro Bádenas, colleague and friend, I am especially grateful for all his efforts to facilitate the publication of this third edition in the Nueva Roma Collection, which he directs so efficiently. Miguel Ángel Puig‑Samper, the former Director of CSIC Press, has never ceased to show his interest in this work and, even in this climate of recession and budgetary cutbacks, he has made the publi‑ cation of this book possible. Enrique Barba, also a member of CSIC Press, has demonstrated his expertise in the task of supervising proofs and facilitating the mediation between the author and the printers. I have written this book within the framework of the project «Edi‑ tion of unpublished Latin texts by Isaac Newton», which I direct. José Manuel Cañas and Pablo Toribio, members of this project, have sup‑ ported me in many ways over the course of its preparation. I am grate‑ ful to José Manuel Cañas and Carlos del Valle for the transcription and revision of the Hebrew texts; Pablo Toribio has been an invaluable aid

XII

The Temple of Solomon

in the elaboration of the bibliography, and in the careful revision of the text prepared for print. I would also like to thank Javier Gil and Yoandy Cabrera for his important proofreading work. I truly appreci‑ ated Patricia Walsh for her accuracy in the translation. Alberto Mayoral, my nephew, an expert in graphic design, has generously devoted time and professional competence to provide suggestions on how to improve the design of the facsimile of the manuscript. I’m in a great debt of gratitude to him. Rufina Gutiérrez has been of valuable assistance in the correction of proofs which were laborious and complex. In difficult circumstances related to this work, to which I refer in the introduction, the selfless, effective and constant help provided by Lorenzo Peña and Pedro Bádenas has been invaluable. They have both dedicated their professional know‑how to the service of what they considered fair. I thank them for this act of friendship. I am also grateful to Alberto Bercovitz for his sound intervention and to Pedro Torres for his unconditional support. My sister and all my family are always actively behind me in the work I undertake. Once again, in the writing of this book, I have felt how their appraisal and their affection have boosted my energy and helped me overcome difficulties.

PROLOGUE

Issac Newton died leaving a considerable number of unpublished manuscripts, many of them wrien in Latin and in a complicated handwriting, plagued with abbreviations, which renders their reading difficult. The topic of many of these texts is Theology, which could, at first sight, seem strange, but it is, in fact, illustrative in order to understand what was going on in the mind of the English sage, one of the most important protagonists of the modern scientific revo‑ lution. Doctor Ciriaca Morano, researcher at the Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), has spent many years dedicated to the edition of these newtonian manuscripts, demonstrating an extraordinary phi‑ lological pulchritude, adding to the critical edition of the Latin text a Spanish translation which is as loyal as it is elegant and which helps to understand the most complex passages —of which there are many— of the original. This Temple of Solomon, which contains the critical edition of Newton’s Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem se‑ cundam, has already seen the light of day three times, backed on each occasion by CSIC Press, and it now undertakes its fourth editorial journey (in 1996 the Editio Princeps appeared, in 1998 a reprint of the same work, and in 2009 the second Spanish edition). The editorial work on an unpublished manuscript is arduous and expensive and thus, it carries author’s rights, which is why it is nei‑ ther ethical nor licit to take advantage of the work of others. Dr. Mo‑ rano has carried out titanic work in order to bring Newton’s Latin

XIV

The Temple of Solomon

works to the light of the universal scientific community, inaugurating therein a new vision of the prolific English scholar, according to which he is not only the father of modern Physics but also a homo universalis, characteristic of the time in which he lived (he was born in 1643 and died in 1727), aentive to any cultural stimulus which could enter his privileged mind, including the theological reasoning which he developed in his unpublished Latin work. This titanic effort is today crowned by the appearance of this third edition, revised and updated, of The Temple of Solomon, a rather curious work in which Newton tackles a question of enormous theological relevance today, and with numerous esoteric implications, in the time of its existence, following in the footsteps of authors such as the Cordobese Jesuit Juan Bautista Villalpando, a disciple of Juan de Herrera and the au‑ thor, in collaboration with Jerónimo de Prado, of another Templo de Salomón of great note in its time —the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth— which has been studied, with such clear erudition, by the late lamented Juan Antonio Ramírez. Congratulations, thus, to Ciriaca Morano, for her most valuable edition, enriched by a memorable English language version, a prelim‑ inary study, an introduction and some notes —both textual and exegetic— which I believe are essential to the understanding of Newton’s theological work, which brings, to the pragmatic apple of universal gravitation, the delicious and useless apple of Paradise.

LUIS ALBERTO DE CUENCA, of the Royal Academy of History Madrid, september 9, 2013

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez The work being re‑edited contains the Editio Princeps of the man‑ uscript Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam, enriched and revised for its third edition in English version, the reproduction of its facsimile, its English translation and a study in which the scien‑ tific, theological and philological aspects related to the text and its edition are of particular interest. The manuscript is wrien by the author himself and it belongs to the corpus of theological writings of Isaac Newton which the author did not publish in his lifetime and which, aer many vicissitudes, have remained almost entirely unpublished. The need to publish a new edition of a work can come about for different reasons: because the print run has sold out and due to its special interest it is wise to republish it, because new information or aspects can be contributed which could improve the work or because the state of research on the topic has changed substantially and it is necessary to offer information on this evolution. To these three rea‑ sons we must also add, in this case, the need to translate the work to English, given the origin of the author of the manuscript, one of the greatest geniuses of Humanity, who elaborated and spread his science both in Latin and in English.

THE SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL REPERCUSSIONS OF OUR EDITION By way of an introduction, it could be especially significant to evaluate the scientific and cultural repercussions that the edition of

XVI

The Temple of Solomon

the Prolegomena has had over the years since its first appearance in 1996 to the present day when a new revised and updated edition is being undertaken. My intention here is not to give concrete information of reviews, studies or mentions made of the work in hand. At this point I only wish to contribute some reflections on the significance of preventing a work of Isaac Newton’s from falling definitively into oblivion, but rather that it can be handed over to the world of culture and science to bring about new knowledge, to provoke new ideas and to occupy the place it deserves in that chain of marvels which is the evolution and progress of humanity. Thus important is the challenge faced by the editor of any work, but the task carries a special relevance if, as is the case, this work was wrien by one of the greatest geniuses of our history. We are dealing, also, with a manuscript which has remained, for almost three cen‑ turies, in an undeserved anonymity because a accumulation of cir‑ cumstances related to Newton’s beliefs rendered its publication unadvisable in the author’s lifetime. The responsibility of revealing such a well‑kept secret invites one to give one’s all to the service of the task to ensure that the work de‑ rived from the manuscript, the printed edition, offers, with complete exactitude and clarity, that which the author would have wanted to grant personally to the printing presses. To do so, in such cases as this, is a long and conscientious task, destined to bring the work from the formal “chaos” in which it is found, to a “cosmos” in which the value of its content can be clearly identified. The reader will, on careful observation of the facsimile, be able to intuitively check part of what I am saying. Carrying out this type of work is the practical dimension of a sci‑ ence, philology, which requires an important arsenal of theoretical knowledge of the discipline and a deep and specialised knowledge of the language in which the manuscript is wrien. Today, in an age when we hand our work over to the publishers in its electronic form, in clear, computer generated writing, and prac‑

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION

XVII

tically composed and formaed, we find it difficult to imagine a sci‑ entific work of philological nature such as that which I have just de‑ scribed and which, in the case of the manuscript of the Prolegomena, is made worse by the difficulties which I will indicate below. Sur‑ prisingly, it has been in these years, of such intense technological de‑ velopment, that European legislation has taken an interest in these subjects and has come to value them, capturing in its articles a fair and just recognition of the work of the authors of editions of hitherto unpublished works, inserting an article which especially protects their intellectual property rights.1 Aside from the repercussions to which, generically speaking, I have just alluded, I wish to dedicate some lines to another type of more concrete influences, some more direct and others more indi‑ rect, that the publication of the work, in 1996, has exercised in the field of the edition of the unpublished theological works of Isaac Newton.

EVOLUTION OF RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF EDITIONS IN THE LAST YEARS In April 1996 I had the satisfaction of holding in my hands, al‑ ready printed, my first edition of the work Isaac Newton, El templo de Salomón.2 With this work the Editio Princeps of the manuscript, hand‑ wrien by Isaac Newton, Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem se‑ cundam, which we have been referring to and whose subject maer 1 The current Spanish Intellectual Property Law‑ complying with an European Union directive (Council Directive 93/98/EEC, 29 October 1993, “harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights”)— establishes a particular protection —under the title of intellectual property— to the edition of previously unpublished works (that is Editiones Principes) when the patrimonial rights of their authors or their heirs over such works has expired. The law, in such cases, grants to the scientific and the commercial editors, the patrimonial right over these works with the same conditions of exploitation as would have corresponded to their au‑ thors, but only for a period of twenty‑five years (cf. art. 129.1 of the codified text of the Spanish Intellectual Property Law [text updated in 2007]). 2 Isaac Newton, El Templo de Salomón. Edición crítica, traducción española y estudio filológico a cargo de Ciriaca Morano. Introducción de José Manuel Sánchez Ron. Edición Príncipe. Madrid, CSIC‑Debate, 1996, col. Clásicos del Pensamiento (First reprint, Madrid, CSIC, 1998).

XVIII

The Temple of Solomon

(as indicated by a subtitle wrien by another hand) was the Temple of Salomon, saw the light of day. The Prolegomena, like so many other Newtonian manuscripts on theological subjects, had slept a sleep of centuries before making the crucial jump in the history of every wrien text, the step from being an unpublished to a published work. The satisfaction which I enjoyed at that moment as the author of the edition of the unpublished work more than made up for the arduous task that its elaboration had been and which I will later describe synthetically (cf. pp. L‑LXI). The print run sold out in six months, it was reprinted for the first time in 1998 and it has long since sold out. Over the many years since the 1998 reprint, the state of research in the field of the Newtonian manuscripts related to theological top‑ ics has evolved notably, both with respect to editions and to studies. It is not my aim to give a synopsis of the current state of the question on these topics, but rather I wish to refer to an event which is directly related to the publication of our work, the undertaking, in 1996, of the research project titled Critical Edition of Unpublished Latin Texts of Isaac Newton. The experience of the edition of The Temple of Salomon led me into a fascinating scientific field then unknown to me: that of the New‑ tonian manuscripts of theological and biblical subject maer which as yet remained unpublished and which, surprisingly, were very nu‑ merous. I was witness to the growing interest which these manu‑ scripts were awakening in the scientific community of different fields and that many researchers were taking on the difficult task of ex‑ ploring them in order to carry out studies on their content, despite the fact that the majority were as yet unpublished. When I published the edition of the Prolegomena in 1996, I had al‑ ready spent ten years dedicated to works of critical edition of Latin biblical manuscripts with special difficulties. Despite this experience, I can say that the edition of the Prolegomena was the most difficult and arduous task of my scientific career. The numerous corrections, amendments, the practically illegible readings, the problems of com‑

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION

XIX

position (which I was able to resolve only by consulting and study‑ ing the original in depth, both in the aspects related with the medium and the content) led me to the conviction that such work could only be carried out successfully by Latinist philologists who are very expert in the edition of unpublished works and with a com‑ plete dominion of the Latin language. All these circumstances called for the need and the opportunity to initiate a project whose objective was to systematically edit Newton’s unpublished theological manuscripts in Latin and I felt, of course, that it was essential that the project be constituted by experienced Latinists. It was to my great surprise that I found that nobody, neither in Spain nor abroad, had yet carried out a similar project. In November 1996, I applied for a Research and Development project from the Spanish state, which I was granted, and since then it has been carried out, uninterruptedly, under my leadership in the research field of Latin Philology and at the Consejo Superior de In‑ vestigaciones Científicas (Spanish National Research Council, CSIC) with the title: Edición crítica de textos inéditos de Isaac Newton en Lengua Latina (Critical Edition of Unpublished Latin Texts of Isaac Newton). In the selection of these unpublished texts priority is given to theological questions. The early days were somewhat precarious as the subvention re‑ ceived was inversely proportional to the magnitude of the panorama which was unfolding and so I found myself obliged to spend four years working alone; subsequently a group of Latinists who have worked or have been trained on the project have collaborated. Allow me, for his efficacy and continuity, to make a special mention of Dr. José Manuel Cañas, currently a researcher at CSIC, who has been working on the project since 2001 and Dr. Pablo Toribio, who joined the project in 2007. He prepared his doctoral thesis on this project, under the direction of Dr. Cañas, and he has won two national re‑ search prizes for his work. There have also been occasional collabo‑ rations from researchers of other disciplines, such as the history of science, in order to enrich the studies from an interdisciplinary per‑ spective.

XX

The Temple of Solomon

With reference to the objectives and the scope of the project I must distinguish between two periods. In the first period we were intent only on publishing critical editions printed in book format which would follow the model of The Temple of Salomon, with an introduc‑ tion which would contextualise the manuscript in the author’s career and explain the fundamental issues of the work, as well as the philo‑ logical aspects and aspects of textual criticism related to the publish‑ ing of the manuscript. Each work would be accompanied by a facsimile of the manuscript, by the critically edited Latin text and its Spanish translation. In 1998, a group of researchers from the Imperial College of Lon‑ don, from the scientific field of the history of science, undertook a project, the Newton Project, directed by Robert Iliffe, with an objective which was similar in certain aspects to that which we had been car‑ rying out since 1996. In this case, the objective was to edit unpub‑ lished works by Newton, in English and in digital format in order to publish them on the Internet. As a result of lengthy discussions, we came to an agreement in December 2000 to work interrelatedly, which meant an amplification of the English project as it would in‑ clude the Latin manuscripts which we were editing in Spain, and also an extension of our own initial objective as we decided that the material of the editions would be published both in book and in elec‑ tronic formats. In 2001 I joined the Editorial Board of the Newton Project as the party responsible for the supervision of the Latin man‑ uscripts and Robert Iliffe was included in our project as an expert on the history of science. In 2004 other projects to edit unpublished Newtonian works in the English language began in Indiana (USA) and in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada). To date two researchers from the Spanish team (myself included) have, on the web page of the Newton Project, published editions of three manuscripts from the Yahuda Collection, Jerusalem which were carried out within the framework of the CSIC research project: manuscripts 2.3 and 12, under the direction of José Manuel Cañas and 2.2 under the direction of Ciriaca Morano. Manuscript 1 of the Keynes Collection of King’s College Cambridge, under the direction of Ciriaca Morano, is also ready for codification. Work on the edi‑

INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION

XXI

tions in book format also continues and to date the work correspon‑ ding to manuscripts 2.2, 2.3, 12 and 19 of the Yahuda Collection is very advanced. It is no exaggeration to state that the edition of the Prolegomena is at the basis of this editorial movement of recent years, of unpu‑ blished theological Newtonian texts, as it was this work which clearly caused and made possible the birth and development of the Spanish project of systematic publication of unpublished Newtonian theological texts in the Latin language. The rest of the story we have just told has come about, doubtlessly, as a natural development of facts, linked to so many scientific achievements (of editions and studies) as are caused by the work of this great genius with whom history continues to hold a debt, by allowing a large number of his theological writings to still, shamefully for humanity, bear the tag “unpublished”. The current state of research calls for an increase in the number of editions and, of course, for care in the quality of the editions, in order to faithfully conserve, by way of careful publication, the cultural her‑ itage of the manuscripts. We must bear in mind that, until there is a significant advance in the field of editions, the conclusions of the studies on the nuclear issues of Newton’s theological thinking and their implications on the scientific thinking will, naturally, be provi‑ sional. Even so, we have available at this point many interesting studies on these issues, some of which we will refer to later. In the state of research sometimes not only are there advances, but there are also backward steps and, albeit succinctly, I must allude to an occurrence which, shortly before the publication of the second edition, when it was already quite advanced, was surprising and worrying for me. The Prolegomena manuscript, the object of this edition, has been published and remains, on the web page of a well known prestigious project under the authorship of a person who obviously uses the Editio Princeps as a source, but without recognising it or asking the two le‑ gitimate owners of the copyright, Ciriaca Morano and CSIC, for the preceptive editorial permits.

XXII

The Temple of Solomon

The text remained on the web for two months without the slight‑ est reference to my work, the only existing one (the title El Templo de Salomón was mentioned only as “related material”). Subsequently, when, aer unsuccessful talks the abuse and violation of property rights was reported to the party responsible for the online publica‑ tion, minimum references to “coincidences” between one work and the other were introduced. They refused, however, to acknowledge the alleged plagiarism and to remove it from the web page. This is not the time to enter into further detail, which will be explained be‑ fore the relevant scientific and judicial bodies. The CSIC, in the persons of the former Director of publications, Miguel Ángel Puig‑Samper, and the Director of the Clásicos del Pen‑ samiento collection, Txetxu Ausín, demonstrated their awareness to the need to protect the editorial heritage which editions, in general, and particularly those of such important authors as Newton repre‑ sent. Thanks to this sensitivity we were able, in 2009, to publish a sec‑ ond edition of The Temple of Solomon. The third edition, which we present here, for the first time in the English language, contains mod‑ ifications which affect the Latin text, its translation and the new study which precedes the edition. We continue with the same editorial criterion, which, in my opin‑ ion, best favours scientists’ study of these materials: the intention to edit the text without errors and corrections combining editorial in‑ tervention with a total and absolute respect for the contents which the author would have wanted to transmit. Lastly, in the focus and the carrying out of the study which precedes the edition we have born in mind the current state of the question with reference to edi‑ tions and studies which are directly or indirectly related to the man‑ uscript which concerns us.

SCIENCE, PHILOLOGY AND THEOLOGY IN ISAAC NEWTON´S TEMPLE OF SOLOMON PRELIMINARY STUDY Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez I. THE CONTEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPT PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI PARTEM SECUNDAM (SCIENTIFIC AND THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS) The text of the manuscript, the Editio Princeps of which we offer here, is of particular interest, both for the importance of its author and because it exposes some aspects which were unknown or which, at very least, were mistakingly considered as being of lile relevance in the personality of Isaac Newton (1642‑1727). It is a work of theo‑ logical intentions in which the philological method is widely used. In order to carry out the study in hand I start from a basic metho‑ dological assumption for philologists: that, in order to be correctly understood, texts must be read in context. To frame the rich and varied works of Newton, and the man him‑ self, in the context of the culture, history and scientific development of his time is a multidisciplinary task which has largely been achie‑ ved, although much remains to be done, especially with regard to his unpublished theological works. Logically, I am not inclined to carry out such a task, which I believe goes beyond the realm of my profession as a philologist, but I do believe it is necessary to identify some contextual elements which will lead the reader to a beer un‑ derstanding of the text on which this study is based. One could be forgiven for thinking that the content of the manus‑ cript published here is a treatise of sorts on the measurements of the

XXIV

The Temple of Solomon

Temple of Solomon, with the sole purpose of reaching a fixed con‑ clusion on these measurements, with scrupulous exactitude by way of mathematical calculations. However, if his text is interpreted in the context of the data which progressive knowledge of Newton’s theological manuscripts has provided and is compared with that in his published works, we can find many clues to cement a new, more unitary understanding of his figure as a scientist and a theologian. For this reason, and, given that we are dealing with one those ma‑ nuscripts of Newton’s which are normally referred to as theological manuscripts, I will offer, in the first part of the study, data related to the corpus of those manuscripts as well as some elements of the scien‑ tific and theological conception of their author which will allow us to establish the role played by the Prolegomena within this theological context. I will devote the second part to the actual critical‑philologi‑ cal study of the work.

The corpus of Newton’s unpublished theological manuscripts and the eventful history of their transmission The expression “the theological manuscripts of Isaac Newton” is habitually used to refer to a corpus of texts by this author which in‑ cludes writings of a predominantly theological nature, and also to other biblical exegesis texts (referring mainly to the interpretation of prophecies), historical texts and even some texts related to linguistic maers. They are considered under the generic heading indicated above because they all were all conceived, definitively, with an in‑ tention related to the field of theology. Many of these manuscripts were handwrien by Newton, in Latin or in English and, surprising as it may seem, the majority of them have not yet been published. To give some idea of the volume of Newton’s work on theological questions, suffice to say that these writings far outnumber those of scientific content. To date we are aware of the existence of 180 ma‑ nuscripts, some of these very extensive, which are to be found de‑

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXV

posited in universities, scientific institutions and private collections in various countries.1 The importance of this considerable number of manuscripts was minimized for many years and they were considered a lesser, unim‑ portant production of the great scientist Isaac Newton. It goes wi‑ thout saying that this scant recognition explains the fact that these manuscripts have been unpublished for centuries and helps us to understand the eventful history of their transmission.2 On the death of Isaac Newton his estate was seized as a result of an unfortunate incident related to his position as an official of the Crown and warder of the Royal Mint. Despite the fact that John Con‑ dui, his nieces’s husband, paid a deposit, the books from his library, among which were to be found his own publications, had to be sold. Aer several sales, the collection almost in its entirety was handed over in deposit to Trinity College, Cambridge. 1 The manuscripts which are catalogued to date (cf. Catalogues on pp. LI and 146 of this work) can be found in the following institutions: Cambridge University Library (Cambridge, United Kingdom); King’s College (Cambridge, United Kingdom); Trinity College Library (Cambridge, United Kingdom); Bodleian Library (Oxford, United Kingdom); New College Library (Oxford, United Kingdom); Magdalen College Li‑ brary (Oxford, United Kingdom); Royal Society Library (London, United Kingdom); Hampshire Record Office (Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom); Martin Bodmer Foundation (Geneva, Switzerland); Jewish National and University Library (Jerusalem, Israel); Pierpont Morgan Library (New York, USA); Harry Ransom Hu‑ manities Research Center, University of Texas (Austin, Texas, USA); The Babson Col‑ lege, Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac Newton, Huntington Library (San Marino, California, USA); Stanford University Library (Stanford, Cali‑ fornia, USA); James White Library, Andrew University (Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA); Kentucky University Library (Lexington, Kentucky, USA); Library of the Amer‑ ican Philosophical Society (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA); William Andrews Clark Memorial Library (Los Angeles, California, USA); Lehigh University Library (Beth‑ lehem, Pennsylvania, USA). The location of some others is still unknown. 2 For a detailed and complete history of the transmission of these manuscipts, cf. J. M. Sánchez Ron, in the introduction to the first edition of this work: Isaac Newton, El Templo de Salomón. Edición crítica, traducción española y estudio filológico a cargo de Ciriaca Morano. Introducción de José Manuel Sánchez Ron. Edición Príncipe, Ma‑ drid, CSIC‑Debate, 1996, pp. XLVIII‑LVII (henceforth, El Templo de Salomón). Cf. also Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: a Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge ‑ London ‑ New York ‑ New Rochelle ‑ Melbourne ‑ Sydney, Cambridge University Press, 1980, pp. 871‑874 (henceforth, Never at Rest) and, by the same author, “Newton’s theologi‑ cal manuscripts”, in Zev Bechler (ed.), Contemporary Newtonian Research, Dordrech, D. Reidel, 1982, pp. 129‑143 (henceforth, “Newton’s Theological Manuscripts”).

XXVI

The Temple of Solomon

Newton’s unpublished writings, the majority of which corres‑ pond to the manuscripts related to alchemy and the questions which we have called “theological” met a different fate. When John Con‑ dui paid the deposit, he asked, in return, for the majority of these unpublished writings. This he was granted, on the condition that those which were deemed to be of greater interest be published. Only three of the manuscripts from the legacy saw the light of day as a result of a positive ruling by Thomas Pellet (1671‑1744), presi‑ dent of the College of Physicians: The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (published by Conduit in 1728), Observations upon the Pro‑ phecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733) and a dra writ‑ ten by Newton for the final book of the Principia, which was published under the title De Mundi Systemate (1728). The lot of unpublished manuscripts remained practically intact and linked to Newton’s family, the Counts of Portsmouth, until 1872. At this point the fih Count of Portsmouth decided to donate the part of the manuscripts which was of more scientific content to the University of Cambridge, but previously, a commission created by the university itself examined all the legacy in order to classify and divide the material. The commission published a catalogue3 in which, as well as alluding to the disorder in which the manuscripts were to be found and to the deterioration of a considerable part of the collection, which had been damaged by fire and damp, it ruled that “the historical and theological manuscripts can not be conside‑ red of much worth”. Undoubtedly, as Sánchez Ron4 wisely suggests, this statement has influenced the consideration in which history has held this type of manuscripts. The Portsmouth family did not, at that time, want to give up a considerable part of the materials (among which were to be found the writings on chronology, theology, history and alchemy as well as those which Condui had collected for a biography of Newton) but they did finally put them up for sale via Sotheby’s in 1936. As a 3 A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Papers Wrien by or Belonging

to Sir Isaac Newton, the Scientific Portion of which has been presented by the Earl of Ports‑ mouth to the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1888. 4 Cf. El Templo de Salomón, op. cit., p. L.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXVII

result of this sale the manuscripts, auctioned off in 329 lots acquired by 37 buyers, were dispersed around the world.5 The majority of the manuscripts, aer a series of vicissitudes, can currently be found de‑ posited in the collections mentioned below. J. M. Keynes purchased a considerable number of manuscripts on alchemy and theology as well as Condui’s biographical notes, all of which he later donated to King’s College Library, Cambridge. Other manuscripts were purchased by Lord Wakefield and donated to the Royal Mint of London. Finally, the majority of the theological manuscripts was acquired by Abraham Shalom Ezekiel Yahuda; no record exists of Yahuda’s aendance at the auction but we do know that he bought various lots and later donated them to the Jewish Na‑ tional and University Library in Jerusalem. A considerable number of the manuscripts went on to form part of the Grace Babson collec‑ tion, particularly the Prolegomena (Babson MS 434) which has pre‑ viously been purchased by the London booksellers Maggs Brothers including lot 263 of the Sotheby’s auction. This manuscript was de‑ posited in the Babson Library, Wellesley, Massachuses, until 1995 from where it went to the Burndy Library of the Dibner Institute of the MIT (Massachuses Institute of Technology) and today it can be found in the Huntington Library of San Marino (California). We will provide further information on this manuscript on pages XLVIII‑LXXVI.

A distorted image of the thinking and the work of Newton The forced privacy to which Newton’s unpublished works were subject for over two hundred years prevented a large part of the au‑ thor’s textual legacy from being known. Until years aer the Sotheby’s auction, the theological manuscripts were not accessible to researchers, apart from few exceptions. This fact not only led to the ignorance of part of Newton’s work, it also notably hampered the possibility of 5 For interesting data on the details of the auction cf. Peter Spargo, “Sotheby’s, Keynes and Yahuda, the 1936 sale of Newton’s manuscripts”, in P. Harman and A. Shapiro (eds.), The Investigation of Difficult Things: Essays on Newton and the History of the Exact Sciences, in Honour of D. T. Whiteside, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 115‑134.

XXVIII

The Temple of Solomon

acquiring an adequate knowledge of his thinking on these maers and has even led to distortions and an incomplete global perception of Newton’s personality by researchers and, as a result, by society in general. Logically, the image which prevailed among his contemporaries and until the mid‑twentieth century was that of Newton the scientist. His theological writings seemed unjustifiable in his intellectual ca‑ reer and to this day some people wonder how to reconcile them with his scientific production, hinting at the abysm that lies between Newton’s science and his beliefs. It might be a good idea to distinguish between two aspects of the question of the separation of Newton the scientist and Newton the theologian: the first one refers to the quality of both, the scientific and the theological work. How does one reconcile the rigour, the care and the perfection of his scientific work with the fragmented state and the lack of elaboration which oen characterize his theo‑ logical writing? For the answer to this question the reader of this study will come to his own conclusion as he reaches a deeper un‑ derstanding of the facts of Newton’s heterodoxy, of the eventful transmission of his manuscripts, of the constant evolution of his thinking which is reflected in successive revisions, etc. The second aspect could be related to the following question: can the action of God as a creator make any sense in the new scien‑ tific design of the world that Newton presents and within the fra‑ mework of his mechanist philosophy? In this case the question must be referred to Newton himself: could he reconcile his scien‑ tific approach with his faith in God? We must search for the answer in his scientific work and also contrast it with his theological ma‑ nuscripts. Newton himself had expressed his theist conception of the natu‑ ral world, reflected in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). This work considerably advanced the science of his time by offering a new, mechanist explanation, based on immutable laws of physics, of the solar system, of the planets and the comets and of their harmonic situation in the universe.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXIX

By way of a method which used analysis of phenomena as a star‑ ting point, he arrived to their causes, but, when he tried to explain their first cause, he affirmed that the physical laws of the plan of the uni‑ verse revealed the existence of a unique dominion, a Lord of the uni‑ verse whom he identified with God. He expressed his thinking, clearly and synthetically, in Scholium Generale,6 which he wrote as colophon to the third edition of the Principia, stating “the most beautiful harmo‑ nizations of the sun, the planets and the comets could not be done wi‑ thout the plan of an intelligent and powerful being […] He governs everything, not as the soul of the world, but rather as the lord of the universe. And because of his dominion, he is called the lord god”.7 There are also other places in his published work where Newton refers to God as the ultimate explanation of the order of the universe.8 To what extent the explanation that Newton offered in the Prin‑ cipia for the concrete mode of action of God on the world completely satisfied him or not is open to interpretations; rather we must think, due to some of his affirmations, that he accepted the possibility of leaving certain scientific questions related with theological issue open: “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly accor‑ ding to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immate‑ rial is a question which I have le to ye consideration of my readers”.9 But, it is clear that the scientist believed that the first cause of the world was not a mechanical cause, as he expresses it, in his treatise on optics: “The main Business of natural Philosophy is to argue from Phenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce 6

Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Editio tertia aucta et emendata, Londini, MDCCXXVI. 7 Elegantissima haecce solis, planetarum et cometarum compages non nisi consilio et do‑ minio entis intelligentis et potentis oriri potuit […] Hic omnia regit non ut anima mundi, sed ut universorum dominus. Et propter dominium suum, dominus deus dici solet. The translations of the latin texts are C. Morano’s own, unless another source is given. 8 Cf. Among others: In a letter to Bentley dated the 10th of December 1692, New‑ ton speaks about the Principia and confesses that, when writing it, he thought it could help people to believe in God (cf. The Correspondence of Sir Isaac Newton, ed. H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scout, A. Rupert Hall and Laura Tilling, 7 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1959‑1977, vol. 3, p. 233). 9 In a letter to Bentley dated the 25th of February 1693, speaking of the concept of “action from a distance” (cf. The Correspondence of Sir Isaac Newton, vol. 3, op. cit., pp. 253‑254).

XXX

The Temple of Solomon

Causes from Effects, til we come to the very first Cause, which cer‑ tainly is not mechanical”.10 Despite the clarity with which Newton explained his unified con‑ cept of God and the world, on his death there was a certain defor‑ mation in the interpretation of his thinking.11 The change was largely influenced by the Enlightenment, which, although it did agree with Newton in his rational explanation of the laws of nature, rejected his theological discourse relative to creation. Likewise, the exaltation of the figure of Laplace, who, for his mechanist conception of the world was called “France’s Newton” was also a factor. Bearing in mind that in Laplace’s explanation of the universe God was not present, New‑ ton’s theological legacy was ignored and it became disconnected from his philosophy on nature. In England, the secularization of Newton’s natural philosophy was not so extreme, as many scientists of the Illustration (the so called “vir‑ tuosi”)12 continued to make their theist view of the world compatible with science, but even so, the figure of Newton was, also in his own country, valued almost exclusively for his scientific achievements. On the other hand, those who perceived the figure of Newton in this way could not justify the existence of the varied corpus of so ca‑ lled theological manuscripts. In this case, it was Jean Baptise Biot who aimed to solve the dilemma by aributing the Newton’s “irra‑ tional” dedication to theology to a mental illness suffered as a con‑ sequence of a supposed fire which destroyed a considerable part of his manuscripts in 1693.13 From then on, a now elderly and mentally 10 Isaac Newton, Optics or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours, of light, 4th ed., 1730, New York, Dover, 1952, p. 402. 11 For a detailed exposing of this evolution cf. Stephen D. Snobelen’s magistral study: “To discourse of God: Isaac Newton’s heterodox theology and his natural philosophy”, in Paul B. Wood (ed.), Science and dissent in England, 1688‑1945, Alder‑ shot, Hampshire, Ashgate, 2004, pp. 39‑65 (henceforth, “To discourse of God”). 12 Cf. Richard S. Westfall, Science and Religion in Seventeenth‑Century England, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1958, especially the chapter on the study of Newton as one of these “virtuosi”, pp. 193‑220 (henceforth, Science and Religion). 13 A broad description of the influence of Laplace and Biot in the undervaluing of the theological writings of Newton can be consulted in Frank E. Manuel, Isaac Newton historian, Cambridge (Massachuses), The Belknap Press of Harvard Uni‑ versity Press, 1963, pp. 255‑257.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXXI

weakened Newton would have spent his time writing on theological issues. The perception of an exclusively scientific Newton lasted until well into the second half of the twentieth century, although with some notable exceptions, among which that of Frank E. Manuel14 and the excellent biography of Westfall15 are worthy of mention. Manuel, who consulted the Yahuda collection and published two fragments,16 in his work proclaims Newton’s religiosity and calls for a search for the information to form a more unitary conception of his thinking.17 Westfall, meanwhile, whose research on Newton’s theological con‑ ception led to an important advancement on the issue, reveals, how‑ ever, a certain dualist conception when referring ambiguously to the mutual influences of science and faith in the author’s thinking.18 Snobelen19 describes how, from the 1980’s and from the following years on, a very radical revision of the image of Newton inherited from the Enlightenment has come about. This author aributes the beginning of this revision to the studies promoted by James E. Force and Richard H. Popkin whose starting point was the work Essays on the Context, Nature and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology.20 Numerous subsequent studies21 have strengthened the design of a new, more unified, image of Newton’s personality and the totality of his work. Snobelen22 even affirms that in his work there exists no 14 Frank E. Manuel, The Religion of Isaac Newton, Oxford, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1974 (henceforth, The Religion). 15 Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest, op. cit. 16 Corresponding to Yahuda MS 1 and MS 6. 17 Manuel, op. cit., p. 11 expresses, by way of a note, his nonconformity with the establishment of “compartments” in Newton’s thinking and declares his aim to look for connections in so far as was possible. 18 Note Westfall’s different positioning confronting “Newton’s theological man‑ uscripts”, op. cit., pp. 139‑140 and “Newton and christianity”, in J. M. van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith and Science. Vol. 3: The role of beliefs in the natural sciences, An‑ caster, The Pascal Center, 1996, p. 72. 19 Cf. Stephen D. Snobelen, “To discourse of God”, op. cit. 20 J. E. Force and R. Popkin, Essays on the Context, Nature and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology, Dordrech ‑ Boston ‑ London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990 (henceforth, Essays). 21 Cf. Bibliographical selection on pp. 149‑160 of this work. 22 Cf. Snobelen, “To discourse of God”, op. cit., pp. 3‑5.

XXXII

The Temple of Solomon

cognitive wall between the study of God and of his creation, there‑ fore it is contrived to continue speaking of interaction between two elements which for Newton were unified. Today we can also say that, especially since 1996, the develop‑ ment of the first editions of the theological Newtonian texts and of the projects in which these editions are systematically carried out is also fundamental to this new revision and makes the perdurance or provisionality of the results obtained in these studies23 possible. As a brief synthesis, we could say that the new revision is charac‑ terized by the following aspects: a detailed reconstruction of the na‑ ture of Newton’s faith is underway; considerable effort has been made to restore the unity of his natural philosophy and his theology and even interesting hypotheses have been emied on the accep‑ tance of the alchemy manuscripts in this unified version.24 I am going to accept, as a provisional hypothesis, this unified image of the natural philosophy of Newton and his theology, in order to approach other theological aspects related with the manu‑ script we are interested in.

The incomprehensible heterodoxy of a religious man? As the content of the theological manuscripts has become acces‑ sible to researchers it has become clear that Newton did not accept the totality of the credo of the Christian faith. Thus we ask: how could a theist scientist, a pious member of the Anglican church whose unshakable faith in God he even went so far as to integrate in his new conception of the world, fall into heresy? Popular science books on Newton have scarcely touched on this question but scientific studies on the maer have demonstrated how

23

Cf. For further information on projects and editions, cf. “Introduction”, pp. XVII‑XXII of this work. 24 Cf. Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Janus faces of genius: the role of alchemy in Newton’s thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXXIII

and in what he departed from orthodoxy. In the context of this study, Newton’s heterodoxy is of genuine interest as it relates directly to a large part of the content of the theological manuscripts, it throws some light, definitively, on the question of why these manuscripts were never published and more importantly, it helps one to under‑ stand very significant aspects of the thinking and the life of the great scientist. According to Westfall,25 there is solid evidence of Newton’s early in‑ terest in theology, despite the fact that, also in the opinion of this writer, we have no evidence of theological manuscripts prior to 1672. Although any hypothesis of dates which affect the totality of the theological ma‑ nuscripts should be treated with caution, given the incipient nature of the publications and studies of these manuscripts it seems plausible to think that Newton intensified his dedication to theology in the runup to his ordination as a priest. Westfall holds the honour of being the first to relate Newton’s heterodoxy with this event.26 To remain in the post of Fellow, which Newton held in Trinity Co‑ llege, Cambridge, it was an essential requisite to be ordained, which in Newton’s case was to happen in 1675. The act required a prior oath in which the candidate expressed his adhesion to “the true faith” (which in his context referred to the faith of the Anglican Church). In previous years (1665, 1668 and 1669), Newton had declared his ortho‑ doxy under oath, without scruples, in order to fulfil his university obligations. But, as his ordination drew close, documentary data exists of his decision to renounce it, leave his post at Trinity College and face the painful social and personal consequences that his decision would bring. The only plausible reason for his aitude must be the incom‑ patibility which he found between the faith of his Church and his own beliefs. Newton’s heterodoxy must have been forged, thus, between the years 1670 and 1675. This is not the place to analyse the totality of Newton’s heterodox beliefs in great detail, but it is important to state clearly that almost 25

Cf. Never at Rest, op. cit., espec. pp. 312‑334. Cf. Richard S. Westfall, “Isaac Newton: Theologian”, in Edna Ullman‑Margalit (ed.), The Scientific Enterprise, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1992, pp. 228‑229. 26

XXXIV

The Temple of Solomon

all his new credo stemmed from his repulsion to admit faith in the Trinity. He recognised and insisted in the absolute dominion of a sin‑ gle God and accepted Christ as a mediator between God and Man, sent by God himself, but subordinated to the Father and created by Him. The opposition to Trinitarism led him to study the patristic Greek and Latin literature, in which he became an expert, and to delve into the roots of the Christian faith to detect when and how a belief which he felt was incompatible with the unique and uni‑ versal dominion of God had been introduced. The conviction that in the fourth century corruptions had occurred in the translation and interpretation of The Sacred Writings spurred Newton to en‑ thusiastically devote himself also to their study, constantly seeking an adequate method which would allow him access to a deeper and deeper understanding of the processes which had determined the corruptions. His new faith led him to revise the history of Christianity, to rein‑ terpret the prophecies and even to try to create a new universal lan‑ guage which facilitated their understanding. From his fertile pen came hundreds of pages on the history of the Christian faith in which, in his opinion, there is a central moment, that of the Nicean Council (325 AD), and a crucial concept defined there: the affirmation that the Son is the homoousios, that is, of the same nature and substance as the Father. On this hinge hung his cri‑ ticisms of the Catholic Church as the cause of the introduction of the trinitarian “idolatry”, his adhesion to the ideas of Arrio,27 his ideo‑ logical link to the as yet uncontaminated times of primitive Chris‑ tianity and many other issues. All this information suggests an 27

Westfall and his contemporaries speak of Newton’s arrianism, subsequent studies soften the definition of Newton’s antinicean beliefs speaking of his links with prenicean christianity, his analogies with Judaism and his similarities with the beliefs of a movement of his time based on the reading of the Bible and known by the name of “socinianism”. Cf., among others: S. D. Snobelen, “Isaac Newton and Socinianism: associations with a greater heresy”, in F. Mühlegger, M. Mulsow (eds.), Socinianism and cultural exchange: The European dimension of Antitrinitarian and Armin‑ ian Newtworks, 1650‑1720, Leiden, Brill, 2005, pp. 241‑293.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXXV

aspiration to write a new history, from the Arrian perspective, on this period of Christian faith.28 Newton’s approach to these questions is closely related to his way of interpreting the biblical prophecies and the method of access to this interpretation.

Interpretation of the prophecies and human history The broad and deep knowledge of the Bible and the patristics to which the Newtonian theological manuscripts bear witness can be explained, undoubtedly, by the motivations to which we have allu‑ ded, but there is also a close link between the elevated cultural at‑ mosphere reigning in the British Isles between 1660 and 1730 where Newton, like many other intellectuals of his time, began to suggest a new method of access to biblical literature in accordance with the new developments in science.29 The explanations that modern science offered on the origin of the world questioned a literal interpretation of the biblical narrations of Genesis and raised an important basic problem with the certainty, which, until that moment was unquestionable, that God revealed himself equally in the Book of Nature, explained by science, and in the Book of Scriptures, illuminated by theology. Spinoza, meanwhile, in his Tractatus Theologico‑politicus (1670), in‑ sisted on the need to study the Bible from a scientific point of view, regardless of religious considerations; the influence of his affirma‑ tions stimulated research throughout Europe and later favoured the 28 This hypothesis is defended by various authors: Cf. Snobelen, “Isaac Newton, heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite”, in: The British Journal for the History of Science, 32 (1999), pp. 381‑429, espec. pp. 384 and 389. And José Manuel Cañas, who states that the Yahuda manuscript 2.3 is part of this project, cf. “Ediciones recientes de in‑ éditos latinos de Isaac Newton sobre teología y Biblia. Manuscript 2.3 of the Yahuda Collection (Jerusalem)” currently at printers. 29 Cf. James E. Force and Richard H. Popkin (eds.), The Books of Nature and Scrip‑ ture: Recent Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology and Biblical Criticism in the Nether‑ lands of Spinoza’s Time and the British Isles of Newton’s Time, Dordrecht ‑ Boston ‑ London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994 (henceforth, The Books).

XXXVI

The Temple of Solomon

application of the critical philological method in biblical studies. Ho‑ wever, to reach these later developments, long debates and argu‑ ments, which were particularly violent in England, where the crisis was called “The Bale of the Books”,30 were necessary. Studies on the context in which Newton carried out his research on the Bible are aiding our understanding of his level of originality or dependences with respect to other authors who wrote on the same themes.31 In this study, though my starting point is the supposition that Newton is heir to his context, in so far as we refer to biblical stu‑ dies, I will especially point out those aspects which characterize the singularity of how he accessed the interpretation of the pro‑ phecies. Many of Newton’s contemporary scholars of the Bible tried to find, for their exegesis, a method which differed from that of the Na‑ tural Sciences, but Newton basically applied the same principles which supported his scientific work. I will refer to this later.32 As for objectives, he did not aim, as other researchers did, to de‑ monstrate the coherence between science and the Bible or between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scriptures; he sought to reveal, through interpretation of the prophecies, that, as for all of nature, God also had a plan for human history and even for eschatology. Newton interpreted, moreover, that the finality of the prophecies was not to offer a prediction of events to come but rather to be an illu‑ mination which, a posteriori, made it possible to know that the events prophesied had been fulfilled with the same exactitude with which the physical laws designed by God are fulfilled in the natural world.33 30 For a documented vision of the extent of this crisis cf. Scott Mandelbrote, “Isaac

Newton and Thomas Burnet: ‘Biblical Criticism and the Crisis of Late Seventeenth‑ Century England’” in The Books, op. cit., pp. 149‑178. 31 Cf. James E. Force and Richard H. Popkin, Essays, op. cit. 32 Cf. pp. XXXIX‑XL. 33 Cf. Westfall, Never at Rest, op. cit., p. 329 and James E. Force, “Newton’s God of Dominion: The Unity of Newton’s Theological, Scientific, and Political Thought”, in Essays, op. cit., pp. 75‑103.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXXVII

Unlike the majority of his peers, who opted for an allegorical in‑ terpretation of the prophecies, he tended towards a literal interpre‑ tation,34 seeking a “scientific” method which evolved from his initial, more allegorical approach to his subsequent application of the historical critical method in its more philological aspects.35 The evolution can be clearly perceived when comparing the type of her‑ meneutics with which Newton approached the books of Daniel and the Apocalypse in Observations, and that which he applies to the book of Ezekiel in the Prolegomena; the diversity of approaches is related, in my opinion, with the evolution of the author’s thinking on this matter and reinforces the argument of the late chronology of the Prolegomena, which I will state specifically later. In Observations, Newton designed a method which is related to the semantics36 of the prophetical images and which he develops in two phases. Firstly, he carefully studies each one of those images and he assigns them a concrete meaning, starting from the idea that in the prophecies a coded language was used (in this search for mea‑ nings we must also situate the concerted efforts of the author to ela‑ borate a Lexis of the Prophets).37 Secondly, he establishes a political correspondence for each and every one of the images of the natural world and he makes a synchronic reading of the prophetic visions from the dated historical events and from the religious institutions since the time of Daniel. He himself refers to the clarity with which he was able to contemplate the analogical meaning of the images: “I have also received much light in my search for the analogy between the natural world and the political world”.38

34

In order to clarify the relations of dependence or originality of Newton with Mede and More cf. Sarah Hutton, “More, Newton and the Language of Biblical Prophecy”, in The Books, op. cit., pp. 39‑45 and Rob Iliffe, “‘Making a Shew’: apoca‑ lyptic Hermeneutics and the Sociology of Christian Idolatry in the Work of Isaac Newton and Henry More”, in The Books, op. cit., pp. 5‑89. 35 Cf. pp. LXI‑LXIX of this work. 36 The rules for interpreting the words and language in the Scriptures and for es‑ tablishing a method and an interpretation of the Apocalyse are to be found in New‑ ton’s manuscript Yahuda 1 and were edited by Frank E. Manuel, The Religion, op. cit., pp. 116‑124. 37 On this question and its implications cf. also pp. LIX‑LXI. 38 Isaac Newton, Keynes MS 5, ff. 2 and following.

XXXVIII

The Temple of Solomon

One of the differences between the way Newton approached the prophecy in Observations upon the Apocalypsis and in the Prolegomena, is expressed in a sentence from the laer: “We must know the form of these —referring to the three Jewish sanctuaries— if we wish to know their meaning”.39 The difference lies in the change from inte‑ rest in semantics predominant in Observations to interest in the form which refers, both to the structure of the Temple in order to find out the exactitude of its measurements, and to the shape of the biblical text in order to guarantee its fidelity. In the interpretation of the pro‑ phecies which Newton carries out in the Prolegomena he insists on the study of the transmission of the biblical text in order to be able to stipulate where and how the corruptions of the true readings were transmied, at what moment and why the scribe or the translator of the Scripture had introduced a deformed variant which affects the total meaning of a word or a sentence. The commentary on the pro‑ phecy of Ezekiel which he makes in this manuscript is characterized by a systematic application of the critical philological method which is very much in tune with the ideas which Spinoza, a contemporary of Newton’s, had already proposed in his Tractatus Theologico‑politi‑ cus (1670), mentioned before. With both methods his aim was to demonstrate that each predic‑ tion of the prophetic books had been fulfilled and that the corres‑ pondence between the prophecy and history had been perfect.40 Furthermore, the interpretation which Newton makes of the prophe‑ cies is linked to his desire to rewrite the history of true Christianity, which also explains his interest in analysing how the corruptions came about, both in the events and in the texts, in order to be able to restore the truth of the beginnings.41 His historical writings are thus, as Westfall observes, very correct in their interpretation of the pro‑ phecies.42

39

Cf. fol. 1 p. 76 of this work. Cf. Frank E. Manuel, The Religion, op. cit., pp. 86‑98. 41 Cf. Sarah Hutton, “More, Newton, and the Language of Biblical Prophecy”, in The Books, op. cit., p. 46. 42 Cf. Westfall, Never at Rest, op. cit., pp. 344 and following. 40

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XXXIX

Science and interpretation of the prophecies As Popkin43 suggests, science and the interpretation of the biblical prophecies must be understood in Newton as paths towards the un‑ derstanding of God’s plan in a process of progressive knowledge of nature and the destiny of man. This idea, which had already been suggested by Manuel,44 is being ratified by many researchers today. In my opinion, we could delve further into this thinking with just a nuance of difference: they are not different paths, but rather one sin‑ gle epistemological objective: to arrive to the knowledge of how the universe works and mutatis mutandis, of God’s plan for it with respect to the natural world, human history and eschatology. Starting from this idea, I would now like to give a detailed expla‑ nation of what I expressed synthetically above: that Newton applied to his study of the Bible, specifically to the interpretation of the proph‑ ecies, the same principles which supported the method used in his scientific work or, in other words, that the epistemology and the underlying methods in Newton’s science can be applied analogically to his theological thinkings, more specifically, to his interpretation of the prophecies. In his analysis of the natural world, Newton had used the induc‑ tive method, whose starting point was to examine phenomena in order to go back to their causes. He also, analogically, uses the in‑ ductive method in the study of historical events as, starting with the dated facts, one can trace back to the illumination that the prophecy throws on them. Finally, he proceeds in the same way in the critical philological analysis of the texts of the Scripture, first analysing the most recent ones, where the corruptions take place, and, from these, he goes back to the original texts. This method allowed him to reach analogical results in the natu‑ ral world and in human history: the exact fulfilment of the laws of physics as an expression of God’s dominion over the natural world.

43 44

Richard Popkin, “Newton as a Bible Scholar”, in Essays, op. cit., pp. 103‑119. Cf. Frank E. Manuel, The Religion, op. cit., p. 88.

XL

The Temple of Solomon

Its equivalent is the inexorable fulfilment of the prophecies as an ex‑ pression of God’s dominion over human history and eschatology. The mathematical calculation which he carries out in order to ex‑ plain the regularity of the laws of physics in the natural world is also applied analogically in historical events through chronological me‑ asurements,45 and likewise, in the special measurements applied to the image of the “type” of the Temple of Solomon. In both these cases the exactitude of the measurements makes it possible to perceive the exact fulfilment of the prophecies. Similarly, as Mamiani correctly observed, strong analogies can be detected between the regulae philosophandi (rules of reasoning) which are to be found in their final form in the third edition of the book of the Principia, and the sixteen rules of prophetic interpretation.46 Wi‑ thin this set of rules I would like to pay special aention to those of simplicity and harmony, to which I will refer later due to their im‑ portance in relation to the similarities between the natural world and the image of the Temple of Solomon.

The Temple of Solomon in the scientific and theological work of Isaac Newton The Temple of Solomon was, from ancient times, an object of fas‑ cination, both for those who contemplated it and for those who, over the centuries, admired it without having actually been there. During the reign of Solomon (10th century BC) the project which David had dreamed of carrying out was culminated: the construc‑

45 Newton dedicated an extensive part of his unpublished historical‑theological writings to the exactitude in the fixing of the chronological measurements, to a cer‑ tain extent they appear in his work The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, published in 1728. 46 According to Mamiani, the rules of the Principia are a later version of those elaborated for the study of the biblical prophecies, cf. Maurizio Mamiani, “The rhet‑ oric of certainty: Newton’s method in science and in the interpretation of the Apoc‑ alipse” in M. Pera and W. R. Shea (eds.), Persuading Science, Canton, Science History, 1991, pp. 157‑172.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XLI

tion of the grandiose and very beautiful Temple which was conside‑ red, thereaer, the centre of the cult to Yahweh, the central religious and sociopolitical element of the Jewish people, and also of great symbolic power in Christianity. The Temple was God’s first stable dwelling among his people as the Tabernacle of the time of Moses was a sort of portable tent which contained the Ark of the Covenant and which accompanied the people in their exodus to the promised land. Destroyed in 587‑586 BC by Na‑ bucodonosor, it was reconstructed in approximately 500 BC by Zerru‑ babel. This second Temple, which restarted the cult to Yahweh as it had formerly been, symbolised, moreover, the theocratic restoration of the origins and signified, once again, the sign of the divine presence amongst men. Ezekiel, many years prior to the reconstruction of the Temple, had prophesied that this would take place (chapters 40‑48) and that the measurements and the structure of the Temple of Solo‑ mon should be reproduced. Herod the Great extended it around 20 BC and it was finally destroyed by the Romans under the reign of Titus in the year 70 AD. Many erudites prior to Newton studied the Temple of Solomon for different reasons and from diverse perspectives. It is sufficient to remember, among others, Nicolás de Lyra (1270‑1349), François Va‑ table, a philologist and exegesist († 1547), and the Spanish Benito Arias Montano, biblical scholar, poet, and councillor of Philip the Se‑ cond (1527‑1598), Juan Caramuel Lobkowitz, mathematician and en‑ gineer (1606‑1682) and Juan Bautista Villalpando (1552‑1608), author, together with Jerónimo de Prado, of a work of singular importance to which Newton referred several times: In Ezechielem explanationes et Apparatus Ubis ac Templi Hierosolimitani (Rome, 1596‑1605, 3 vols.).47 Newton was also fascinated by the Temple of Solomon and devo‑ ted time and energy to its study. In different manuscripts48 he alludes

47 For more extensive and explicit information on the tradition of the interest of the sages and exegists in the Temple of Solomon, cf. José Manuel Sánchez Ron in his introduction to Isaac Newton. El Templo de Salomón, op. cit., pp. LVII‑LX. 48 As well as in Observations and The Chronology, Newton refers to the Temple in different manuscripts, cf. among others: MS 2.4 and 14 of the Yahuda collection.

XLII

The Temple of Solomon

to the great construction of the Jewish people and contributes infor‑ mation which allows us to know the relevance that the image of the Temple held as a symbol and an expression of his theological thinking, and more concretely, to his interpretation of the prophecies. Doubtlessly he clearly sensed the strength of this image to repre‑ sent, in a synthetic and intuitive manner, his own scientific and the‑ ological conception of the World, and he used it with triple symbolism: as an expression of God’s dominion and central place in the Universe, in human history and in the scatological destiny of hu‑ manity, the laer two being symbolised, respectively, by the terres‑ trial Jerusalem and the celestial Jerusalem. God’s dominion over the Universe, which the Temple evoked, is clearly reflected when he states “In the Apocalypse the natural world is represented by the Temple of Jerusalem and the parts of this world by the analogous parts of the Temple. As heaven by the house of the Tem‑ ple; the highest heaven by the most holy; the throne of God in heaven by the Ark; the sun by the bright flame of the fire of the Altar, or by the face of the Son of Man shining through this flame like the sun is his strength […]. And hence the parts of the Temple have the same signi‑ fication with the analogous parts of the world”.49 This conception was, moreover, in tune with those of the ancient knowledge of Egypt, Baby‑ lon or Chaldea, which were held in such esteem by Newton, which es‑ tablished close links between science and religion50 by way of the parallelism between the structure of the world and the structure of the temples. From this symbology, Richard H. Popkin has gone so far as to say that the Temple of Solomon was, according to Newton, a sort of microcosm closely linked to the macrocosm.51 In the Prolegomena no mention is made of the symbology of the Temple as a reflection of the Universe, but, implicitly, the image of God the Architect which is suggested by the prophecy of Ezekiel (the 49

Isaac Newton, Keynes MS 5, fol. 9. Newton also refers to this type of symbol‑ ogy in other places. 50 Cf. J. M. Sánchez Ron, in his introduction to El Templo de Salomón, op. cit., p. XXVIII. 51 Cf. Richard H. Popkin, “Newton as a Bible Scholar”, p. 112, in James E. Force and Richard H. Popkin (eds.), Essays, op. cit., pp. 103‑118.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XLIII

same God who reveals the design of the reconstruction of the Tem‑ ple) could also evoke the image of God the designer of the Universe. Furthermore, in the Newtonian conception of the Universe simpli‑ city and harmony of proportions (the ratio geometrica) were funda‑ mental characteristics of the God’s design on the world. When Newton refers to the Temple, he especially admires these same cha‑ racteristics: “This structure is valued for the great simplicity and har‑ mony of all its proportions”.52 In the same way that the Temple holds the pedagogical value of showing Man an image of the central presence of God in the Universe, it also symbolises this centrality in human history. Newton accepts this interpretation when, in the Prolegomena, he comments amply on the prophecy of Ezekiel, who, as we said before, preannounces the re‑establishment of the centrality of the cult to Yahweh in Jerusalem, in the Jewish people and, by symbolic extension, in human history. This re‑establishment would happen aer the exile and should be ex‑ pressed via the reconstruction of a new Temple with the same image of the Temple of Solomon and with an identical structure, which is why the prophet meticulously describes the design and the measu‑ rements of the Temple which had been destroyed. This light could explain Newton’s interest in re‑establishing the true measurements of the Temple, which, over the centuries, had been transmied with errors due to successive corruptions of the biblical text. The distortion of the measurements of the Temple held, for Newton, an anti‑theolo‑ gical meaning as any error altered the perfection of the design inspi‑ red by God and the exactitude of the fulfilment of the prophecy. In the Prolegomena the Temple, in its supreme perfection and har‑ mony, symbolises, moreover, the new celestial Jerusalem, the su‑ preme triumph of God’s dominion as the author of the scatological destiny of humanity: “The cubic figure (1 Kings 6: 20) of the inner part of the Temple must always be maintained, as it is the image of the new city of Jerusalem (Apoc. 21)”.53 In this passage of the Apocalypse, 52

Prolegomena, fol. 63, p. 139 of this work: “Tanta proportionum omnium simpli‑ citate et armonía commendatur haec structura”. 53 Prolegomena, fol. 58, p. 134 of this work: “Adyti figura cubica (1 Kings 6: 20) ut typus novae urbis Hierosolymorum (Apoc.21) omnino retinenda est”.

XLIV

The Temple of Solomon

to which Newton alludes in the Prolegomena, the new Jerusalem is described in detail and it is said “Here is God’s dwelling amongst men, he will live among them, they will be his people; and God him‑ self, his God, will be with them” (Apoc. 21: 3). In the Prolegomena, thus, the Temple suggests the plenitude of history, its first step being the founding of theocracy, and its second step, the celestial Jerusalem. The Prolegomena manuscript, beneath its austere appearance as a technical treatise, hides a synthesis of Newton’s thought on God, the universe, human history and the destiny of humanity; therein lie ex‑ pressive features of his faith, of his heterodox beliefs,54 of his aempt to reconstruct history. The Prolegomena, finally, bears witness to the bre‑ adth and depth of his mathematical, linguistic, and philological know‑ ledge.55 To paraphrase the statement that Popkin makes on the Temple of Solomon, we could also say that the Prolegomena evokes the image of a microcosm of the rich and complex personality of its author.

Notes for an evaluation of the scientific and theological thinking of Isaac Newton Up until this point we have recorded a series of facts and ideas which help to restore a unitary vision of the scientific and theological thinking of Isaac Newton, recognising the work carried out by others along the same lines and also contributing new arguments. Perhaps today we could finally say that the contradiction existing between Newton the scientist and Newton the theologian must be forgoen. Now we can follow a different path, approaching, albeit by way of notes, an evaluation of the achievements and failings of that unified project, of the work Newton did to continue interpreting God’s intervention in the natural world and in human history. From the origins of Christianity, to take on the challenge which the development of science posed to the Christian faith has been a 54 55

Cf. p. XXXII‑XL of this work. For a more explicit description of these aspects cf. pp. LXI‑LXV of this work.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XLV

difficult task in which believers and non‑believers, for different rea‑ sons, have found themselves involved. As a snippet of the reality of the world escaped the realm of mystery and could be explained by the advances of science, something stirred in the spirit of believers, for beer or for worse. This visible commotion in turn spurred sub‑ sequent theological developments which aimed to illuminate a new image of God. Newton brought science further ahead than anyone could have imagined, and these advances required new explanations for the in‑ tervention of God in the world. From his condition as a believer, he boldly sought to define God’s role in that universe, ruled by laws of mechanics, which had lost much of its veil of mystery. The theist conception of the creation of nature which Newton sup‑ ported was, basically, the common conception held for centuries (not in vain, since the Middle Ages, theology was the source of the deve‑ lopment of science). His concept of God as an Intelligent Agent or De‑ signer was not original, therefore, but to make God compatible with a new vision of the world, that which he himself had made possible, was indeed original. Within the framework of the natural world pre‑ sided by order, in a mechanist conception in which everything is ex‑ plained by mathematical calculations, Newton came to admit the leap in transcendence which the acceptance of a first, non mechanical cause, the Author of the design, the Architect God of the world who ruled it with a single, absolute dominion, represented. Situated on the hinge of the Enlightenment, rationalist thinkings did, in a way, captivate him, to the extent of wanting to apply the same method to scientific and theological questions, but, although he used rationalist methods, he did not consider reason as absolute and he admied the possibility of transcending it. In reality, his “the‑ ological” effort consisted of explaining how, in a new conception of the world, the existence of the Creator continued to be plausible. To make the idea of God compatible with that advance could only be done by Newton describing Him as the only Lord of the world, author of its design. However, in this new concept of God the Chris‑ tian belief in the Trinity could not reasonably be admied and so,

XLVI

The Temple of Solomon

aer infinite internal struggles to find the truth,56 he questioned the integrity of the credo of his Christian faith and rejected all that clash‑ ed with the vision of perfect ruled order and the supreme and uni‑ que dominion of God. Seeking to evaluate the scientific and theological universe of Newton from a historical, cultural and scientific context allows us to approach his greatness and failings with greater perspective. This type of evaluation, however, as it is distant in time and circumstan‑ ces, requires two caveats: to be perfectly familiar with the differences which exist between one context and another, and to exercise great precaution not to enter into anachronisms. We must recognise the important scientific and theological changes which have occurred since the Enlightenment, changes which swing between the appraisal of his postulates and the new tendencies which would appear to contradict it: Romanticism with its emphasis on fan‑ tasy, the postmodernism of the twentieth century and a new romanti‑ cism, etc. However, it is especially necessary for the question that concerns us to bear in mind that Albert Einstein’s (1879‑1955) theory of relativity and the development of quantum physics introduced changes which allowed for the “transition of an absolute notion of space and time to a relative concept, which produced too the change of an abso‑ lute notion of reason to a relative understanding of rationality”.57

56 I agree with Westfall in that the search for the truth was the principal and the only motor for his scientific and theological work. Remember the anecdotes recounted in Never at Rest, referred to at the beginning and end of his life: to be found respec‑ tively on pp. 88‑89 and 862‑863: “Two pages devoted to Descartes’s metaphysics bluntly interrupted the Aristotelianism of the texts he had been reading. A few pages further on he entered the title, Questiones quaedam Philosophicae, and laid out a set of headings under which to collect the notes from a new course of readings. Somewhat later, he wrote a slogan over the title, «Amicus Plato amicus Aristoteles magis amica veritas»”. “Not long before his death, Newton looked back over his life and summa‑ rized it for some unnamed companion, a magnificent reflection which catches the essence of a life devoted to the pursuit of the Truth: «I don’t know what I may seem to the world, but, as to myself, I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me»”. 57 Cf. Javier Leach Albert, “La relacionabilidad es la base del nuevo enfoque cien‑ tífico y teológico”, http://tendencias21.netLa‑relacionabilidad‑es‑la‑base‑del‑nuevo‑ enfoque‑cientifico‑y‑teologico_a2311.html.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XLVII

Design, order and disorder are no longer adequate terminology to describe nature; the distinctive element of life is perceived as a complexity instead of as something ordered by an intrinsic or an ex‑ trinsic principle. All these changes in the field of physics generated new developments in theological reflection so that new categories to describe reality are being formed and an evolutionary conception of creation in which God can also be recognised is becoming possible. Within this new framework the question about the essence of things coexists today along with that of how things are related and new theological developments are beginning to use the concept of ‘re‑ lationability’58 as a philosophical category with the possibility of offer‑ ing new approaches to a God who has revealed himself as a Trinity. Bearing all these elements of advance in mind we can situate our‑ selves with new perspectives before the work of Newton, while not forgeing to frame it within its context. With this condition, I consi‑ der that Newton’s theological work must not be underestimated. Westfall, however, made a severe criticism of his theology, even going so far as to state that Newtonian rationalism, like that of other “virtuosi” of his time, was the germ of the scepticism and the atheism of the Enlightenment.59 However, we must bear in mind that New‑ ton the believer offered an explanation of nature which was clearly theist and which would be very difficult to consider as generating atheism; he sought to respond to the questions posed by the science and culture of that particular historical moment in a way which, though it may have been insufficient and incurred in methodological errors, was nonetheless valuable. Meanwhile, our contemporary culture has made important ad‑ vances in the study of the epistemology of the different sciences, marking out their relationships and their specific elements. We can recognise that, while relationships may be established between the natural sciences and metaphysics and theology, their methods, ob‑ jectives and results vary substantially and cannot be extrapolated. 58 Cf. Antje Jackelén, “Relationality in Science and Religion”. Currents in Theology and Missions, Chicago, June‑August 2001, vol. 28, n. 3‑4, pp. 229‑237. 59 Cf. Richard S. Westfall, Science and Religion, op. cit., p. 217.

XLVIII

The Temple of Solomon

Physics constructs models to interpret the laws which govern some aspects of reality, but it does not hold any answers to the question of why they exist; metaphysics is a path to see reality as a whole and it responds to the question of “for what?” Finally, theological sear‑ ches are metaphysical proposals which express viewpoints on the world in relation to God, from religious presuppositions.60 Today we can clearly see that the application of a single scientific method to objects of diverse nature invariably leads to reductionist results. We can, however, also state that, in the same way that the mark that Newton le on science allowed for new ways to know the world beer, his theological thinking, inserted in the chain of centu‑ ries to which we referred previously, has also led to successive de‑ velopments in the history of the approach to the knowledge, forever imperfect and analogous, which Man can have of God.

II. EDITIO PRINCEPS OF THE MANUSCRIPT: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS (CRITICAL AND PHILOLOGICAL ASPECTS) In the previous pages we have contributed data which can clarify the value that the manuscript holds in relation to the scientific and theological conception of its author. If Newton the theologian had been undervalued for several centuries, his philological training and activity have been nearly unknown or, at least, they have not been considered sufficiently important as an object of study. The belief that religion had been progressively corrupted by defor‑ mations and idolatries, and that the uncontaminated thought could only be accessed via the study of the ancient world had dominated Newton’s theological worldview. This ideological foundation led him to numerous inexactitudes and non‑scientific approaches in the area of history, as happened with other historians of his time. In the work we are editing, nonetheless, this belief led him to value philology as a scien‑ tific discipline, which, in textual analysis and the comparison of sources, 60 For a varied and indepth study of these suppositions, cf. Javier Leach, “Mathematics, Reason and Religion”, Pensamiento. Revista de Investigación e Información Filosófica, vol. 64, n. 242, serie especial n. 2, 2008.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

XLIX

he sets the objective of purifying them of the corruptions which they suffered over the centuries. In the Prolegomena Newton uses the philo‑ logical method in his commentary of Ezekiel. Though as yet we have but a partial knowledge of the theological manuscripts, I believe that we may say that on few occasions did the author use this method so extensively and systematically. With regard to the erudition necessary to employ the philological method of textual analysis correctly, the manuscript bears witness to the surprising extent of the author’s knowledge of philology. Concretely, for his reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon, he uses the biblical sources which describe the Temple, especially the book of Ezekiel. He quotes the works of Philo and Flavius Josephus, he mentions the Talmud, he quotes Maimonides and, among the more modern authors, he refers to Arias Montano, Constantine L’Empereur, Drusius, Cappel and particularly Villalpando, whose proposal for the reconstruction of the Temple he expressed his disagreement with. That is, the author of the Prolegomena shows himself as an erudite man and with a great knowledge of literary sources. Furthermore, when referring to biblical texts in the commentary of the vision of the Prophet Ezekiel, he provides direct quotes in He‑ brew, Greek and Latin. Moreover, not only does he quote in different languages, but, on numerous occasions, he makes a comparative study of them, as a philologist specialised in textual criticism would do, discussing the variations that appear in Hebrew, Greek and Latin and arguing to support the form he chooses. Together with the techniques of textual criticism, Newton contri‑ butes his mathematical and architectural knowledge to the clarity of the text, which, on several occasions, allows him to dispute the des‑ criptions of the Temple made by the different sources. As De Prado and Villalpando61 had pointed out, in order to be able to interpret the vision of Ezekiel of the reconstruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and to offer, using this vision, a reconstruction of the 61 H. Prado and J. B. Villalpando, In Ezechielem Explanationes et Apparatus Urbis ac Templi Hierosolymitani, 3 vols., Roma, Zannetti, 1596‑1604.

The Temple of Solomon

L

Temple of Solomon, it was necessary to have a person who had not only biblical, philological and exegetic knowledge, but also a substan‑ tial knowledge of mathematics and architecture. The figure of New‑ ton, whose mathematical and architectural knowledge leaves no room for doubt, also, as this work demonstrates, fulfils the necessary requi‑ sites in the field of philology applied to biblical exegesis. Finally the author shows himself to have a great knowledge of the Latin language, a language which, due to its precision and lexical wealth reveals itself as apt and almost perfect for the expression of scientific concepts. Newton’s Latin, correct and beautiful, purely Hu‑ manist in its nature, is the adequate instrument to describe the har‑ mony of that grandiose construction of the Temple of Solomon.

The Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam, a difficult and complex manuscript We are, effectively, dealing with a work which is complex and diffi‑ cult to edit. As we will explain in more detail later, the author crosses things out, he corrects on the line, he makes different types of notes and uses a series of procedures which render the reading of the manuscript nearly impossible; there are also problems of composition, which I will speak about later and which at times appeared insoluble. It is hardly surprising then that, although a small number of au‑ thors have spoken about the manuscript, none of them quotes it ex‑ tensively and not even in the different catalogues is there much news of its content,62 proving thus that, given the difficulty of its reading, the approach that these authors have made to the work has had to be limited, and that these same authors have made a selection of the pages which offered least difficulties to describe the manuscript. I must confess that, although from the beginning I sensed that the publication of the work would contribute a different and illumina‑ ting perspective on some aspects of the evolution of Newton’s think‑ 62

Cf. p. LII, note 68.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LI

ing which were unknown to date, the difficulties of the first edition almost made me desist in my enterprise. It might be worthwhile to give some information on the story of my task previous to the first edition of the manuscript; it has cer‑ tainly been a story full of obstacles, as if the manuscript itself were reluctant to reveal its secret. I learned of its existence via the Swan publishing house, which was interested in publishing it and was looking for a Latinist expe‑ rienced in the field of the edition of Latin texts, especially Latin bi‑ blical texts with particular paleographic and critical difficulties.63 The publishing house had previously approached other experienced Latinists who had desisted in the task due to the apparently insolu‑ ble problems that the reading of the manuscript presented. When I took charge of the job, it was not clear whether or not the work was unpublished and I carried out the necessary groundwork to verify this fact.64 Once this was confirmed, I began the editing work which, aer overcoming numerous incidences, both scientific and extra‑scientific, I was able to bring to fruition, aer a long and difficult bale. However, yet another setback was to stand in the way of the publi‑ cation of the manuscript, as the publishing house which had planned to publish it went into liquidation and could not take responsibility for the edition. And so the photographs of the manuscript and all the typed editing work slept for three years in the drawer of my desk. Fortunately the CSIC65 saw the potential interest in the publica‑ tion of this work and undertook it in a joint editing project with the 63

I later learned that the manuscript had reached the publishing house via Pro‑ fessor R. Taylor, to whom I am grateful for having been the first link in a chain of events which has made this edition possible. 64 At this point in my research the collaboration of Aimée Felker, Librarian of the Babson Library of the Babson College (Wellesley, Massachusetts), where the man‑ uscript was initially found, was very valuable. She also facilitated my receiving the editing permit on beahalf of the Babson Collection. 65 The then director of the publications Department, Alberto Sánchez Alvarez Insúa, approved the publication and his successor, Luis Alberto de Cuenca y Prado provided a variety of facilities for the work to be carried out.

The Temple of Solomon

LII

Debate publishing house; the Burndy Library66 of the Dibner Institute of the MIT (Massachuses Institute of Technology), where I directly worked through the original manuscript, granted the permission for publication and fortunately I was able to have the satisfaction of pub‑ lishing the Editio Princeps of the manuscript, which saw the light of day in April 1996. The subsequent story of the manuscript, to the present day, is re‑ flected synthetically in the Introduction to this work.67

Textual criticism problems The manuscript: its physical characteristics The manuscript is handwrien, in Latin, by Newton. Its appea‑ rance is similar to that of a dra of a text which requires further co‑ rrections. Newton’s handwriting is clear, but the author, as we have already stated, corrects things, crosses things out, and adds text so oen that the reading of the text is rendered terribly complicated and tries the patience of its editor. It can currently be found catalogued as number 434 in the catalo‑ gue of the Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac Newton,68

66 The manuscript was transferred to this centre from the Babson Library. The Librarian of the Burndy Library, Christine A. Ruggere, helped me in many ways with the direct consultation of the manuscript and with obtaining the editing permit on behalf of the Burndy Library. 67 Cf. pp. XVII‑XXII. 68 H. Reichner, A descriptive Catalogue of the Grace K. Babson Collection of the works of Sir Isaac Newton and the material relating to him in the Babson Institute Library, New York, 1950. The references given here to the manuscript are the following: “72 leaves in 4to. and 3 leaves in folio. 84 pp. in Latin (20.8 and 30.6 cm). About 20.000 words. Autograph. With 6 sketches drawn by Newton, showing plans, charts and archi‑ tectural details of the Temple. In linen case. NOTE: This unique and unpublished manuscript is apparently complete, al‑ though in Newton’s numbering of the folded sheets, 8 follows 6 (7 omied); but the catchword connecting them is correct and there is no obvious hiatus in the text”. References to the manuscript also appear in three earlier catalogues: H. R. Luard, G. G. Stokes, J. C. Adams and G. D. Liveing, A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Papers Wrien by or Belonging to Sir Isaac Newton, the Scientific Portion of

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LIII

where it figures by the name of: A Treatise of Remarks on Solomon’s Temple. Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam, in quibus agi‑ tur de forma Sanctuarii Judaici […] Commentarium. It belongs to the aforementioned collection, of which it is one of its best pieces; it was moved in 1995, from the Babson Library in Wellesley, Massachuses, to the Burndy Library of the Dibner Institute for the History of the Science and Technology located at the MIT (Massachuses Institute of Technology). It was subsequently moved again and can now be found in the Huntington Library of San Marino, California. The manuscript has two folios which act as a cover. The first reads, by way of a title: A Treatise of Remarks on Solomon’s Temple, and below: Nº 55; on the second cover one can read: Temple of Solomon, and below: Nº 26‑79/lc. These numbers may correspond to previous classifications of the manuscript. I have come to the conclusion that the handwriting in which this type of title appears is not Newton’s, for which reason I have prefe‑ rred to edit the manuscript by the title which Newton himself gave it: Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam, in quibus agitur which has been presented by the Earl of Portsmouth to the University of Cambridge, Cam‑ bridge, The University Press, 1888, where the manuscript is included in section V, part 15, p. 30 and all that is said of it is that it is wrien in Latin and it is about the Temple of Solomon. In the Catalogue of the Newton papers sold by order of the Viscount Lymington, great niece of Sir Isaac Newton which will be sold by auction by Messrs. Sotheby and co., London 1936, it is included in lot 263, p. 72; the information given by Sotheby on the man‑ uscript is very similar to that given by Reichner. In catalogue no 2 de H. Schab, New York, it appears as item no 87, pp. 33‑34, where, among other information, we are told: “As is generally known, Newton al‑ ways took the deepest interest in religious maers [...] This work was intended as an introduction to an encyclopedia on the Prophecies of the Old Testament [...] New‑ ton explains that the book with the seven seals of the Apocalypse is the book of the Law [...] Of utmost importance is the knowledge of the sanctuaries in which this Law was exercised and of which there existed three at different times: The Taber‑ nacle, the Solomonic Temple and the Second Temple [...] From various sources, he draws the conclusion that Solomon doubled the size of the Tabernacle, thus arriving at the size of the Temple [...] The Second Temple is said to have been erected on the foundations of the first, but with less luxury [...] The Commentary describes the altar, the courts, porticos and gates [...] Newton compares the Hebrew text very carefully with the Septuaginta and the Vulgate and quotations are not only rendered in Latin, but also in Hebrew and Greek”. In the Newton Project catalogue, by John Young, all the references are explained and updated (cf. bibliography).

LIV

The Temple of Solomon

De forma sanctuarii Judaici. Behind secundam the following words ap‑ pear, crossed out: continens expositionem allusionem ad mundum mysti‑ cum populi Israelis. Sect. For the totality of the work I preferred the title The Temple of Solomon as it makes a beer global description of the content. The manuscript is not bound, but rather is presented in the form of notebooks consisting of sheets folded in four parts, each of which measures 15.3 by 10.4 cms and in loose folio size sheets, that is, dou‑ ble the quarters. There are, in total, 18 notebooks, that is, 72 quarter size sheets and 3 folio size sheets. Three of the notebooks are not numbered, but on all the right‑ hand pages, in the lower right‑hand margin, the author writes the word with which the next page begins. In the rest of the notebooks the author begins to number each one, from number 1 to number 15 but omiing number 7, which would appear to be a slip on the au‑ thor’s part, as no text is missing. The three folio‑sized sheets are not numbered and there is no indication of any link between them or with the sheets in the note‑ books. In the notebooks, the author only writes continuous text on one side of each sheet, and he reserves the right‑hand pages exclusively for the continuous text and he considers the le‑hand pages as an auxiliary element for corrections or additions, when necessary, to the text on the right; on each right‑hand page he always leaves a margin, also on the right, to note down references to authors and quoted works.69 Not all the le‑hand pages are wrien on; in total 63 quarter‑sized pages contain continuous text, 24 pages only con‑ tain corrections or intercalations and one contains the word Com‑ mentarium, as an introduction to the part which corresponds to the more detailed commentary of sources. Of the double‑sized sheets, two are wrien on front and back; one has two plans on the front and the back is blank. 69

Except on page 63, where this margin is also used for continuous text.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LV

The text is illustrated with six drawings corresponding to plans of the Temple or the structure of some of its parts.

Problems of composition Although from the outset I was conscious of the special diffi‑ culties that the edition of the text would entail, I began to work using microfilm and photographs. But as the work went on, I could see that, though I had managed to read the text without gaps, I would not be able to solve the difficulties of composition without directly studying the original. Thus, for greater security in the dif‑ ficult readings, I re‑read the original and carried out a detailed study of it. The formal presentation of the manuscript caused many difficul‑ ties of composition as, apparently, we find ourselves before three blocks of text: that of the unnumbered notebooks, that of the three folio‑sized sheets and that of the numbered notebooks. However, it is not only the formal questions which present problems of compo‑ sition; there are also questions of content which render the solution of these problems difficult. Effectively, on analysis of the content, we could also think of the same three independent blocks or, at least, find ourselves with some facts which lead us to believe that we are, in fact, dealing with two versions of the same text, especially with respect to the commentary of Ezekiel’s text.70 That is, in the face of difficulties, both of form and of content, we could ask the following questions: Are we looking at only one text? At a double text for two different publications? At a shorter dra and another longer text? The edition criteria could depend partly on the answers to these questions.

70 Bear in mind that on ff. 8‑11 he comments Ezek. 40, 5‑15. 17‑19. 20‑28. 39‑42. 44‑49; 41, 1‑6. 8‑15; 42, 1‑15; 46, 19. And on ff. 43‑58 he comments Ezek. 40, 1‑49; 41, 1‑26; 42, 1‑20; 43, 1‑7 and 46, 19‑24.

LVI

The Temple of Solomon

Let us face the problem, lile by lile, by answering the different questions. Firstly, are the unnumbered and the numbered notebooks conceived as one single text? I believe the answer to be affirmative. To facilitate the reader’s understanding of the following, I will henceforth refer to the numbering which, as an editorial decision, I have assigned to the facsimile and to the edition of the manuscript (cf. on this question pp. LVI‑LIX, LXXIII‑LXXIV and those which precede the facsimile of the edition). From the point of view of content, nothing is opposed to this, given that in those which I have numbered as the first pages (ff. 1‑7) the to‑ pics dealt with are those of the introduction to the work. And likewise the religious motivation of the work which is described on page 1, where the author confesses his belief in the symbolic character of the Temple and insists on the need to know its form in order to find out its meaning. Having made this declaration, he continues with a synthetic description of the Tabernacle of Moses, the Temple of Solo‑ mon and the second Temple. In those which I have numbered as ff. 12‑69, which correspond to the Commentarium, the topics dealt with could refer to the development of those which were initially posed synthetically; a much more detailed study is carried out of the Temple of Solomon, as well as a detailed commentary of the vision of Ezekiel and a comparison of the Temple of Solomon and the second Temple. However, the link between the two blocks of notebooks, from a for‑ mal point of view, constituted a difficult task of identification. The final clue was offered to me by an a inserted by the author in an unex‑ pected place, in the text of folio 2, and without any other indication of to what he was referring. Aer numerous hypotheses, among which I examined the possibility of it being an error, I decided to think that the author was referring to another place, which was identifiable with that leer (this hypothesis led me to search for and rule out numerous possible places). Finally, I related the aforementioned a to another one which was located in the second block of notebooks, in that numbered as folio 13 in the beginning of the first part of the Commentarium. The answer to the next question is more arduous: where to place the three double‑sized sheets (ff. 8‑11 and 42), which contain neither

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LVII

any indicator to relate them to the two blocks of the notebooks nor a numbering which links them among themselves? On the ff. which I have numbered as 8‑11 the author comments the passages relating Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple; on ff. 43‑57 the majority of these pas‑ sages is commented again. How can this duplicity be explained if it is one single text? Aer a detailed study of the text I have come to the conclusion that on ff. 8‑11 the commentary made is briefer and of a different na‑ ture than that made on ff. 43‑57 and so we should not speak of repe‑ tition, but rather of a complementary commentary. On pages 8‑11 the author alludes to Ezekiel’s text, normally resu‑ ming it, and referring particularly to the places which can be more di‑ rectly clarified by the structure of the Temple reflected in the plans; that is, that in this commentary it is the plans, and not the text itself, which are the main objective. On the other hand, on pages 43‑57 it is the very text of Ezekiel which is the main objective of the commentary; his aim, on commenting the text for a second time, is to carry out a work of textual criticism which purifies the text of mistakes, in order, thus, to be able to clarify the information relative to the structure of the Temple. Pondering the questions of content, I decided to insert the two folio‑sized sheets which contain text (ff. 8‑11) between the block of unnumbered notebooks (ff. 1‑7) and the numbered ones (ff. 12‑69). Meanwhile, in the literature of the time and immediately before, it was a normal procedure to comment the same passages in a double series of commentaries, one seing out or clarifying the contents and the other making linguistic or textual criticism commentaries of the different biblical versions; concretely, in some of the commentaries on Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple, which Newton was very familiar with, this multiple form is used (remember the Explanationes by Villalpando and the Paraphrastica explanatio ex Villalpando explanationum by Cappel in the Trisagion, quoted below). Ff. 8‑11 also put forward a problem of composition with respect to the relationship between them. The continuity of the content between the ff. numbered 8, 9 and 10 is guaranteed by the order of the versicles of the commentary, but on the folio numbered 11, the author adds

LVIII

The Temple of Solomon

some observations to the commentary of the versicles in the previous folios, which are predominantly referred to as textual variants. Finally, on the folio numbered 10, in some lines which are in an inverted po‑ sition, observations are added, also referred to as textual variants, re‑ lative to two versicles which have already been commented. Faced with this type of puzzle, we propose the following hypo‑ thesis. The author first wrote the commentary on ff. 8, 9 and 10; he later added the commentaries corresponding to folio 11 and, when he finished writing this page, he turned the page around from its lower end and used up the free space on the back (fol. 10), writing in the position in which the page ended up when he turned it around, that is, in an inverted position with respect to the text writ‑ ten beforehand on this folio. That this group of pages is a dra is even more evident as they lack a posterior check which would order and unify the commentaries but, given that the author apparently did not carry it out, I edit the text in accordance with the hypothesis formulated. Also, due to the dra‑like character of the pages, they are very difficult to read. As for the third folio‑sized sheet which contains two plans, which I have numbered 42, I have situated it immediately before the com‑ mentary on Ezekiel’s text because in the said commentary (ff. 43 and followings) he alludes to the plan situated on the right. In contrast the author makes no allusion to the plan on the le‑hand side. The synthesis of my composition proposal, according to which I have edited the text, assigning it its own numbering, is the following. I believe that it is a unitary text, conceived as the Prolegomena of a work, the Lexicon Propheticum, which we will speak about shortly. In these Prolegomena there are two parts: in the first, which is shorter and more synthetic (ff. 1‑12), introductory questions are dealt with and a type of commentary is made on Ezekiel which tends to clarify the plans on ff. 8 and 9; in the second (ff. 12‑69) the questions which we previously synthetically expressed are developed: the altar is des‑ cribed and the author aims to see the light that the contemplation of the second Temple contributed in Ezekiel’s visions; the author resu‑ mes what must be corrected in order to imagine, through the vision

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LIX

of Ezekiel, the Temple of Solomon, he continues with a detailed com‑ mentary of this vision and finishes the work by comparing all the Temples amongst themselves and replacing what the Prophet omit‑ ted with respect to the Temples of Solomon and Herod. Although the work can be considered unitary, different grades of elaboration can be observed within; the author may have wrien it at different times, thus the variants in the way to identity the conti‑ nuity of the pages. A graphological study, in order to determine the chronological questions more exactly, could be interesting. From the literary analysis of the end of the manuscript, I am in‑ clined to think that the work is not concluded or that, at least, the final phrasing check has not been carried out, thus the end of the text may acquire a certain character of climax.

Literary criticism problems The relation of the Prolegomena with the Lexicon Propheticum We know nothing about the supposed work, the Lexicon Prophe‑ ticum, as a prolegomenon to which our manuscript is conceived. We do not even know if it came to be. Naturally we should connect the Prolegomena, because of its sub‑ ject maer, with Newton’s other writings on prophetical issues, all of which are born of his interest in finding the keys to the language of the prophets. Is this connection, however, narrow enough to sup‑ pose that the Prolegomena formed part of any of them? David Castillejo, in his work The Expanding Force in Newton’s Cos‑ mos,71 speaks of a page which appeared among the Jerusalem ma‑ nuscripts and which would appear to contain a sort of index to the text of Yahuda MS 9, which is the most important treatise on the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. In this index five books are men‑ tioned, the first of which titled Concerning the language of the Prophets, 71 D. Castillejo, The Expanding Force in Newton’s Cosmos, Madrid, Ediciones de Arte y Bibliofilia, 1981, p. 30.

LX

The Temple of Solomon

would lead us to believe that it touches on a subject maer which is identical or at least similar in nature to that suggested by the title Le‑ xicon Propheticum; meanwhile chapter 10 of this book “Of the parts of the Temple”, indicates that its subject maer would be the same as that of the Prolegomena, the Temple of Solomon. Faced with these coincidences one might think that the Prolegomena were a version of the mentioned chapter, but many arguments invite us to reject this hypothesis, aractive though it might be. Firstly, the word ‘Prolegomena’ itself, for its very etymology: (‘that which is said first or in front’) would lead us to desist from idea of situating this work in tenth place. Moreover, the interest which the Temple of Solomon evoked in this period and those immediately be‑ fore led to the question being dealt with monographically in two of the great Polyglot Bibles already published at the time, Arias Mon‑ tano’s and Walton’s; in the laer it is situated by way of a Prolego‑ mena, and with this name, that is, as an important subject within the content of the work which is dealt with at the beginning. It seems clear that Newton could have been inspired by these precedents for the global conception of the manuscript. Furthermore, it would seem very strange to carry out a monogra‑ phic study of the vision of Ezekiel, as is done in the Prolegomena, in some writings which deal with Daniel and the Apocalypse. Finally, there is a fact which I consider to be especially relevant in order to reject the hypothesis of the relationship between the Le‑ xicon Propheticum and Concerning the Language of the Prophets, and consequently, between the Prolegomena and “Of the parts of the Tem‑ ple”, I refer to the fact that both are wrien in different languages, Latin and English respectively. Given the lack of data which could illuminate the type of work that the Lexicon Propheticum was, I would go so far as to say that, insofar as we know to date, the work was never carried out; nor do we know if Newton planned to write this work personally or not and what type of work it would be. I am inclined to think that he only aimed to write the Prolegomena as a criticism of the reconstructions of the Temple pro‑ posed by other authors. Also, given that at that time extensive com‑

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXI

mentaries already existed of all the biblical books under the umbrella of the work Critici Sacri, to which I will refer later, I doubt that Newton would plan another great work of commentaries which would have demanded an excessive dedication to these questions. Perhaps he conceived the Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici, partem secundam as the introduction to a study dedicated especially to the Prophet Ezekiel, in the same way that in Observations, where the ques‑ tion of the language of the Prophets had already been dealt with, but referred to the books of Daniel and the Apocalypse. The methodological differences existing between Observations and the Prolegomena, which I have referred to in previous pages (cf. pp. XXXVII‑XXXIX), would suggest a different treatment for the lexis of one and the other work. This difference, which also suggests an evolution in the author’s think‑ ing, is reflected in the hesitation which can be noted in the title of our manuscript. As we mentioned before and can be seen in the fac‑ simile,72 the author writes, firstly, a title which coincides with the alle‑ gorical thinking characteristic of Observations: Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici continens expositionem allegoricam ad mundum mysticum po‑ puli Israelis; subsequently he crosses out from continens to Israelis and makes a correction adding partem secundam in quibis agitur de forma Sanctuarii Judaici. With this correction, the title perfectly matched the content and the objective of the work: to know the form of the Temple and express it in exact measurements in order to access its meaning.

The use of sources In the Prolegomena Newton quotes and comments on numerous biblical and non‑biblical sources but, how does he access them? To what extent does he consult them directly or does he find them all together in a secondary source? Are the philological commentaries that Newton makes original or are they exclusively indebted to an anterior tradition? What level of knowledge did he have of the three languages which he uses in the quotes?

72

P. 1.

LXII

The Temple of Solomon

I have carried out an in depth study on the question, initially be‑ lieving that Newton had consulted all the sources directly and in their original languages, but, as I entered into greater depth in my study my work hypothesis has been gradually modified. When it comes to studying the sources used by an author, it is im‑ portant to establish a compendium of those which the author men‑ tions. In this case they are many and varied: Newton quotes the majority of the biblical books, the Prolegomena of Walton’s Biblia Poly‑ gloa, different works by Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, Against Apion, The Jewish War), a work by Philo (On Monarchy), the Mishna by Massecheth, two works by Maimonides (On the External Appearance of the Temple, Treatise on the Divine Cult) the Middoth treatise of the Tal‑ mud according to the Latin tradition of Constantine L’Empereur, a work by Arias Montano (On the Measurements), a work by Buxtorf (Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum), he mentions Villalpando commen‑ ted by Cappel and finally, Cappel and Drusius in Critici Sacri. To imagine that Newton directly selected the very numerous quotes on the Temple from such different authors, especially the extremely abundant quotes by Flavius Josephus, would be to aribute to him and enormous work and an erudition that, though it would not surprise us, given the qualities of the genius, would be excessively surprising in a man dedicated mainly to other materials. Therefore, I modified my initial hypothesis and I researched in the direction of looking for a source where Newton could have found a lot of the material used. At this point of my research I discovered that in the Prolegomena of Walton’s Polygloa73 the majority of the material that Newton quo‑ tes on the Temple and which comes from different authors was to be found in a condensed form. The quotes from Villalpando, Jose‑ phus and the majority of the allusions to the Talmud were initially extracted from the study by L. Cappel in the aforementioned Bible.74 73

Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, ed. by B. Walton, London, 1657. Quoted by Newton on p. 55 note g. 74 L. Cappel, “Trisagion sive Templi Hierosolymitani triplex delineatio: una ex Scrip‑ tura juxta mentem Villalpandi et descriptionem ab eo factam, altera ex Josephi mente et descriptione, tertia ex Judaeorum in Talmude descriptione, et juxta mensuras ab ipsis isthic traditas”, in Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, ed. by B. Walton, vol. 1, London, 1657, I, pp. 2‑38.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXIII

Cappel analyses and comments different sources where the Temple of Solomon is described; the sources studied are: Villalpando, Fla‑ vius Josephus, the Mishna en Massecheth, Maimonides and the Mid‑ dot treatise of the Talmud according to the Latin tradition of Constantino L’Empereur. All these sources, as we have seen, are mentioned by Newton in his work, for which reason it is not surprising that he would initially take Cappel’s reference. However, given that Newton quotes other places in Josephus that Cappel does not, we may suppose that, ha‑ ving found the initial material, he made a direct consultation of the sources and expanded on the information. Moreover, the philological‑theological commentary that Newton makes of the chapters of Ezekiel, where he narrates the vision of the Prophet on the Temple, bears witness to such a depth of knowledge on these maers and an apparent command of Greek, Hebrew and Latin that one is extraordinarily surprised. Newton’s sentence “For this and many other things see Drusius or Cappel “On the Temple” in Critici”,75 led me to the identification of another source which the author uses extensively. With this imprecise quote Newton refers, no doubt, to Critici Sacri,76 a monumental work from 1660 which con‑ tains seven volumes of commentaries on the different books of the Bible made by prestigious experts of the day, and, in a further two

75

Cf. fol. 9, p. 81 of this work.

76 Jacobus Flesher Critici Sacri sive doctissimorum virorum in SS. Biblia Annotationes

et Tractatus, Jacobus Flesher, London 1660, Frankfurt, 16952, Amsterdam, 16983. A synopsis in 5 tomes was also published, London, 1669‑1676, two supplementary tomes: Thesaurus Theol.‑ Philol., Amsterdam 1700 and ss., and two more tomes: The‑ saurus Novus, Amsterdam, 1732. For the commentaries made by Drusius and Cappel in Critici Sacri cf. Annotata ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti sive Criticorum Sacrorum, t. IV, notes to Ezequiel, pp. 6007‑6083. J. Drusius [1550 (Flanders)‑1616]. He completed his studies in Cambridge and he was one of the principal cultivators of scripture studies within Calvinist protestantism. L. Cappel [1585 (France)‑1658]. Calvinist, erudite, a theologian and hebrewist, brother of the theologian James, considered as the founder of biblical criticism. In Critica Sacra, sive de variis quae in sacris V.T. libris occurrunt lectionibus l. VI, subjecta est quaestio de locis parallelis V et NT, Paris, 1650, he sustains and proves that the text of the OT, and, partly, of the NT has been altered by the scribes to the point of ren‑ dering it impossible to scientifically restore the established texts.

LXIV

The Temple of Solomon

volumes, all the biblical treatises of various, also noteworthy, authors are to be found. I have seen that Newton habitually handled this source and from there comes the information that he takes from Arias Montano, both that which he extracts from the treatise De mensuris, which he quotes in his work, and other information, the origin of which he does not concretely indicate.77 Newton, however, particularly makes use of the commentary that Drusius makes of the chapters of Ezekiel where the vision of the Temple is narrated; in this work Drusius comments each one of the versicles carrying out an in depth and detailed labour of philological criticism in which he uses the Hebrew and Greek texts purging them of corruptions; it is this commentary which cons‑ titutes the basis of Newton’s work. As for Philo and Buxtorf,78 he must have directly handled the works of these authors which he quotes in the manuscript. When Newton comments on the passages of Ezekiel’s vision, he alludes to different biblical texts: Hebrew vulg.,79 Septuaginta, Je‑ rome, the Syriac version, Targum by Jonathan, Chaldee Paraphrase and the Arabic version. It could also be thought that the author used both the Hebrew text and the different ancient versions in his origi‑ nal sources. If we observe Walton’s Polygloa, however, we can see that each page of the passages that Newton comments contains: the Hebrew text with an interlinear Latin translation, text of Septuaginta 77 Newton consults in Critici Sacri, Tractatuum Biblicorum vol. prius: sive Criticorum Sacrorum, the treatises by Arias Montano which are edited as Antiquitatum Ju‑ daicarum libri IX in quis, praeter Judaeae, Hierosolymorum, et Templi Salomonis accuratam ‑delineationem, praecipui sacri ac profani gentis ritus describuntur. I think that especially he must have consulted Beseleel sive de Tabernaculo, pp. 609‑618, Ariel sive de Templi fabrica et structura, pp. 618‑632, Aaron sive sanctorum vestimentorumque summa descrip‑ tio, pp. 632‑638 y Thubal‑Cain sive De mensuris sacris, pp. 638‑672. The only one New‑ ton mentions is De mensuris sacris, but he no doubt was referring to the other treatises named when he says: “What Cappel and Arias Montano highlighted start‑ ing from rabbinic material” (cf. fol. 22). 78 Buxtorf, J. (the elder), Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum, completed by his son and published in 1640. 79 He designates the Hebrew text indistinctly as Heb. or Heb. Vulg., a term which explains in fol. 43, note a: In Hebr. iam vulgato, the better known Hebrew text; to the text of the Latin Vulgata he refers with the names Hieronymus, Latinus or versio latina.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXV

accompanied by Latin translation, Latin text from the Vulgata, the Syriac version, Targum by Jonathan, Chaldee Paraphrase and the Arabic version, all with a Latin translation. This leads me to think that Newton used Walton’s Polygloa for his commentary of Ezekiel, without ruling out that he may have consulted other works; I consi‑ der that, concretely for the allusions to the Septuaginta, he must have used other sources, as in this version he distinguishes between the Aldina and Roman editions, a distinction he could not have made with the sole aid of the Polygloa. We also know that, in his personal library, Newton had an edition of the Greek version of the Old Tes‑ tament where he made some notes. Newton also, in other parts of the commentary, alludes to the translations of Aquila and Theodotion, indicating that he consults them in Jerome; he refers, doubtlessly, to the Commentarii in Hieze‑ chielem that he must have used directly or via the information from the notes on Ezekiel made by Drusius in Critici Sacri.

Newton’s philological work in the commentary on the vision of Ezekiel The author heads the commentary saying: “Once we have correct‑ ed all this so, we can imagine in this Temple that of Ezekiel, whose words, illustrated with plans and interpolations, we offer below”.80 He immediately begins to write a Latin text of Ezekiel’s vision to which he adds interpolations which can be distinguished from the basic text by being framed between square brackets. The commen‑ tary on this text is situated in footnotes. We must, thus, aribute three types of interventions to Newton: the philological work which he carries out when presenting a deter‑ mined basic text which is the object of the commentary, that of the commentary itself and that of the interpolations. It would appear logical that Newton had, as a basic text, used that of the interlinear Latin translation of the Hebrew text or that of the 80

Cf. fol. 40, p. 117 of this work.

LXVI

The Temple of Solomon

Latin Vulgata of Walton’s Polygloa. The basic Latin text of Newton’s commentary is not, however, exactly that of the Vulgata nor is it that of the interlinear Latin translation of the Hebrew text of the Poly‑ gloa; it is closer to that of the Vulgata but, on certain occasions it dif‑ fers and, when it does, sometimes the variant of the interlinear translation is used and sometimes it is not. That is, that the same basic Latin text, on which Newton writes the commentary, has itself been the object, on his part, of a certain work of textual criticism according to which the author has initially made some modifications which affect the traditionally received texts. Therefore, although it could not be said that Newton offers his own Latin translation of the Hebrew text, as he fundamentally counts on the Vulgata, it can be seen that he allows himself certain li‑ berties, not to mention the variants proceeding from other works which he introduces and which we will speak about now. Effectively, the most important philological work carried out by Newton is the revision of the Hebrew text, using the readings which are contributed by other versions. The majority of the com‑ mentary which appears as a footnote to the text of the manuscript is taken up with the justification of his choices. Newton introduces a series of variants in the Latin text and he justifies his choices sup‑ ported either by the Hebrew text, the Septuaginta or the other ver‑ sions he collates with. The resulting Latin text, once these variants have been introduced, is by now considerably different from the Vulgata. In the commentary thirty seven81 variants which modify the basic text are accepted by Newton, which represents a very intense revision task. Of these thirty seven variants, thirty five are support‑ ed by the Septuaginta, coinciding or not with the different versions; one variant proceeds from Jerome, coinciding with the Syriac ver‑ sion in a place where Jerome himself does not coincide with the Heb. Vulg.; finally, another variant, consisting of the change of a sin‑ 81 Normally the variant consists of changing one word for another, almost always

the product of a misreading, on a few occasions the omission of several words which have been inadvertently repeated by the scribe is proposed.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXVII

gular for a plural, is a conjecture of Newton’s himself, based on the context.82 It could be said, though cautiously, that the text which is the pro‑ duct of the revision, once the commentary has been made, is practi‑ cally a new Latin translation, given that the distance from the Vulgata is now considerable. Newton shows thus a profoundly critical and revisionist aitude to Vulgata. This aitude is expressed, on many occasions in the commentary, with very strong criticism of Jerome as a translator: “The Latin translator translates terribly”, he says on two occasions, referring to Ezek. 42: 3 and 41: 9 (fol. 11); once he says “The, very corrupt, Latin version” alluding to Ezek. 40: 44 (fol. 11), and on another occasion he states “Jerome in a copy which has been corrupted by use”, referring to Ezek. 40: 5 (fol. 44). Newton’s philological activity in the commentary can not, howe‑ ver, be summed up as simply the choice of variants without giving reasons for these. The author, rather, on quite a few occasions, dis‑ cusses the variants chosen by other authors [cf. the criticism that he makes of Jerome’s choices in Ezek. 40: 11 (fol. 45) where Newton, faced with the reading proposed by Jerome, chooses the lectio diffici‑ lior, in accordance with one of the clearest rules of textual criticism; he also confronted the extensive discussion of Villalpando’s hypo‑ theses, cf. 40: 20 (fol. 46)]. Newton, sometimes, carries out a lexical commentary with the aim of clarifying the meaning of some words [cf. for example Ezek. 41: 8 (fol. 51), 41: 158 (fol. 52)], or its etymology [cf. 41:6 (fol. 51)]; he corrects and criticises poor translations (cf. above, on criticising 82 The author chooses the Septuaginta variant (accompanied or otherwise by other versions) in the following places: 40, 2 (coinciding with Aquila). 6 (twice). 7. 8 (in the alexandrine manuscript, coinciding with Jerome, Syriac version and Arabic ver‑ sion). 9. 14. 17. 20. 23. 24. 32. 36 (coinciding with Jerome). 37 (coinciding with Jerome). 44 (twice). 49 (coinciding with Aquila and Theodotion); 41, 1. 3 (twice). 9 (twice, one of which coincides with Jerome and Jonathan). 10 (in the alexandrine manuscript, coinciding with the Arabic version). 16 (coinciding with the Arabic version). 22; 42, 1 and 2 (in the alexandrine manuscript, coinciding with the Ara‑ bic version). 4. 9. 10. 11 (twice). 15. 16. 17. The author chooses Jerome’s variant in 42, 12 (coinciding with the Syriac version). Newton makes his own conjecture in 40, 14.

LXVIII

The Temple of Solomon

translations by Jerome) and he values good translations [cf. 40: 44 (fol. 49)]; he detects and interprets an incorrect order of words [cf. 41: 6 (fol. 51)]; when there is a variant of reading between the He‑ brew text and the Septuaginta, on many occasions he interprets which was the Hebrew word which Septuaginta should have translated [cf. 40: 44 (fol. 49), 45. 49; 41: 1 (fol. 50). 22 (fol. 53), etc.], which could give us some idea of the knowledge he had of the Hebrew and Greek languages.83 Besides revising the text, Newton adds to it, as I have already mentioned, a series of interpolations with a clarifying function which may refer to different aspects: some make implicit words explicit, or make local references or other types of unclear references more con‑ crete, others clarify the sense of a determined word in the text, others tend to improve the style of the text, which is at times too concise. As I said before, for his commentary Newton relies fundamen‑ tally on Drusius commentary and to a lesser extent, on the informa‑ tion received from the sources he consults. In the Drusius commentary many of the Hebrew forms at the base of the transla‑ tions are clarified, so he could have taken part of this information from here. Does this mean that Newton’s philological work was only compiling information and that his knowledge of Greek and Hebrew might not have been very complete? I have carried out the comparative study of Newton’s commen‑ tary with that of Drusius and I believe, though he did use this com‑ mentary, that I can conclude that many of his criticisms and philological observations are strictly original and that these criti‑ cisms and observations represent a thorough knowledge of the

83 Checking his personal library can give us some idea at to what extent he was devoted to the cultivation of languages; he possessed many varied dictionaries: six Greek dictionaries, a further six Greek and Latin dictionaries, five polyglot diction‑ aries (two of which included oriental languages), three Hebrew dictionaries, two Latin‑English dictionaries, one Latin one, one Chaldee one, a Syriac one, two French, one French‑English, one French‑Italian and one Dutch‑Latin dictionary. He also had several grammar books: five Greek, two Hebrew, an English one, a Latin one and a Spanish one (cf. J. Harrison, The library of Isaac Newton, Cambridge‑London‑New York‑Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 68‑69).

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXIX

Greek and Hebrew languages; his extensive knowledge of Latin goes without saying. Furthermore, his mathematical knowledge very often illuminated the choice of variants of the texts, with which he reached a harmonious and illuminating conjunction of knowledge.

Indications for an approximate dating of the Prolegomena Although we have already given some information which suggest a late dating of the manuscript, we will now try to gather together all the indications which help to document the date when Newton may have wrien this manuscript. The study of the literary sources which the author used to docu‑ ment the work Prolegomena takes us to the limit of the earliest date on which it could have been wrien. Effectively, given that the latest dated source of those which Newton used was the monumental trea‑ tise, the Critici Sacri, from 1660, we can safely state that the Prolego‑ mena is subsequent to 1660. This date, being very early, does not hold much value, for which reason it must be specified by other data. Newton’s revisionist aitude to the Vulgata text and his harsh criti‑ cism of the text translated by Jerome indicate that the Prolegomena was wrien in a moment in which the author had already incurred in her‑ esy as, in Newton’s time and context, the Vulgata was intangible. Mo‑ reover, in the previous chapter we contributed data which indicates that it was between 1669 and 1675 that the religious change came about in Newton which made him adhere to the arian theses (remem‑ ber how in 1669 he accepted a fellowship in Trinity College, swearing that he would maintain the one true faith, and that in January of 1675 he wrote a leer to Henry Oldenburg in which he told him that he was considering renouncing his fellowship, a decision no doubt linked with his heterodoxy). From this fact we can deduce, thus, that the work which interests us must date at the earliest, from 1669. Furthermore, it was around 1670 when Newton began studying theology seriously, precisely in order to document his new beliefs.

LXX

The Temple of Solomon

From this date on, we can, from some of his documented theologi‑ cal works, extract ideas on how his thoughts on diverse aspects evolved, but especially with relation to his interpretation of the prophecies. According to Westfall,84 Newton’s interest in the Jewish world and its institutions began in 1680 and it is from this date forward that we can situate the composition of the Prolegomena. Suffice to re‑ member that at the beginning of the work the author states: “From here we can deduce that that legislative organisation was a beer system than the natural world for the prophets to take their images […] Thus, we must consider the Israelite world and expose the mean‑ ing of its parts and ceremonies. And above all we must examine the sanctuary, where legal actions were fulfilled […]”. In chapter I of this study I tried to explain how Newton evolved in the interpretation of the prophecies from his initial, more allegori‑ cal thinking, to subsequently reach the systematic application of the historical critical method in its more philological aspects. The com‑ parison of the work Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (posterior to 1680) and the Prolegomena has de‑ monstrated the conclusion that the ideas set out in the Prolegomena express a more evolved state in Newton’s thinking on the interpre‑ tation of the prophecies. I conclude the same when I compare it with the MS 14 Yahuda. Those facts suggest a date later than 1680. We can suppose that the monographic study of the Temple was subsequent to that which he carried out in other works where he dealt with it more or less marginally, as is the case with Observa‑ tions… and The Chronology…,85 the laer being later than 1725. In the Treatise which Newton sent to John Locke on the 14th of November 1690,86 in the form of two leers, he commented on two, 84 Cf. Richard S.Westfall, “Newton’s Theological manuscript” en Z. Bechler (ed.), Contemporary Newtonian research, R. Deidel, Dordrech, 1982, pp. 134‑135. 85 The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, London, 1728. 86 An Historical account of two notable corruptions of Scripture in a letter to a friend, in Isaaci Newtoni Opera quae exstant omnia, ed. S. Horsley, London, 1785, vol. I, pp. 493‑550.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXXI

supposedly corrupt, trinitarian texts (1 Jn. 5: 8) saying that they did not appear in the first Greek manuscripts. The way in which Newton argues in order to demonstrate how the corruption of these texts came about and how the numerous corruptions which, in his opinion, were introduced in the 4th century, originated, makes it obvious that he was already familiar with and applied the methods of textual crit‑ icism. In this work he sets out the basis of how the corruptions oc‑ curred, while in the Prolegomena he applies a concrete methodology to identify the corruptions, taking the basis as established, an indi‑ cator which leads me to believe that the Prolegomena are wrien later than 1690. From the information which we have analysed so far I believe I can state that the Prolegomena is a late work, very possibly later than 1690 and with some probability later than 1725. Perhaps the argu‑ ment to situate it at a later date than the publication of The Chronology is not sufficiently convincing. What is indeed clear is the level of ma‑ turity which the author reaches in the application of the philological method and that it may be expressive of a moment of great maturity in the evolution of his scientific and theological thinking. Moreover, if we admit the hypothesis of the later date, it would beer explain the dra‑like character of a lot of the work and the lack of a final re‑ vision which the author could not carry out, his work being inter‑ rupted by death.

Editorial intervention or loyalty to the text? A difficult distinction The editing criteria of the Latin text The first edition of a document always poses particular problems, more so in this case in which the text appears to be, from the point of view of form, a first dra of what might become a printed text. As far as the problems of composition, which have been substantial, are concerned, they have already been sufficiently described in the preceding study. The solutions adopted justify the global organisation of the material which I have carried out in the edition.

LXXII

The Temple of Solomon

Any editor feels the responsibility to not betray the text, through loyalty to the author, but, in this case, this loyalty must be compatible with the suspicion that Newton would have introduced quite a few corrections in his own text before editing it, or, at least, he would have presented it in a cleaner form and with the problems of com‑ position more clearly resolved. When pondering on to what extent the text can be respected or corrected, I believe I have been as sparing as possible when introduc‑ ing corrections or revisions (only in the case of an obvious mistake which I point out in notes, unification of types of writing, small mo‑ difications in punctuation which, without altering the meaning, im‑ prove the style). I start from the premise that, although the formal presentation of Newton’s text leaves a lot to be desired, the text is in a state of writing in progress which will only need a few touches, particularly with regard to the part of the Commentarium (ff. 12‑69); on the other hand, I believe that the first part (ff. 1‑11) as I have already said, would have required a greater revision on the part of the author, both in form and in content, but as a criterion, I think that, given that the author did not have the chance to carry it out, the edi‑ tor should not substitute the author, but rather he should, here also, be sparing in his corrections, advising the reader of the state in which the text is to be found. As for the numerous crossings out to be found in the text, my method was the following: I do not edit what Newton voluntarily crossed out, as I believe that this would have been the author’s in‑ tention. Moreover, in the majority of cases Newton does not omit the content of the crossed out text, but rather normally offers an alternative version in a more careful or precise writing style, there‑ fore, it is not ideas from the text which are normally lost, but only more defective formulations. In one case, where I doubted as to whether the author wished to cross out a concrete paragraph or only part of it, I edited the complete text (Ezek. 40: 14 and 16, and 44. 45. 46, fol. 8) as I understood that the amplification of the com‑ mentary made by the author in fol. 11 is not redundant, but rather complementary.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXXIII

I understand that some may not agree with this editing criterion, arguing that it would be interesting to see how Newton self‑corrects, but I believe that to do so one can consult the facsimile and that, on editing, it is preferable to present the clearest text and with a very simple critical apparatus. In the manuscript there are many sentences, and sometimes lines, which are almost illegible, but which are not crossed out. Here I have tried to the best of my ability to overcome the difficulty in reading, faithful to the criterion that whatever Newton le in the text should remain. I can affirm that I have achieved this without any gaps. On the title On the editing options with regard to the problem of the title, cf. above: “The manuscript: its physical characteristics”.87 On the numbering The original manuscript does not, as we have said before, have any continuous numbering. The decision to assign a numbering to the facsimile and the edition, once the problems of composition were solved, is the most important editorial decision which I have made and it is based, naturally, on the unitary conception of the work. In the facsimile, I assigned the numbering to the right‑hand pages on the sheets which are the size of a quarter of a folio and it appears on the boom margin of this book. The editorial option of aributing numbering exclusively to the right‑hand pages is based on the fact that, in the quarter‑sized pages, the author reserves the le‑hand pages for, when it is necessary, inser‑ ting text into the right‑hand ones. That is, the right‑hand pages are the guide to the continuity of the text and the le‑hand ones are auxiliary. For the folio‑sized sheets (numbered 8‑11) which have text on both sides, but without space reserved for insertions, I have followed the same criterion of assigning numbering to each page of continuous text. 87

Cf. p. LII.

LXXIV

The Temple of Solomon

The edited text has an internal numbering, based on that which I assigned to the facsimile, in which the change of folio is indicated with the reference [fol.] in the Latin text and in the English transla‑ tion too. For more on this question, cf. pp. LV‑LIX of this work. On the insertions The author, with a sign, identifies the text which must be inserted and the place where it is to be inserted, except on two occasions (fol. 36 le and fol. 57 le). The correct identification of the place is oen problematic given that the dra‑like situation of the text can, at times, render the iden‑ tification of the sign very difficult. The two occasions when the text to be inserted carries no identif‑ ying sign have required the solution of the problem on the part of the editor who has had to base herself on internal critical textual data, especially difficult in the second case. On the reference to the plans In the manuscript it is sometimes difficult to identify which plan the author is referring to in each case, therefore I think it is necessary to make the following clarifications: – In folio 8 he refers to the plan of the door which can be found on the same folio (which we will call fig. 1) until the end of Ezek. 40: 15 where he begins to refer to the general plan of the Temple in folio 9 (which the author calls fig. 2); the allusions to fig. 2 continue in folio10. In verse 11 there is a reference to the first plan up until Ezek. 40: 16; from here on the allusions refer to the second plan. In folio 13 the allusions to the plan of the altar found in the same folio begin. – From folio 43 on there are allusions to the plan of the door in folio 42, right‑hand side. The author makes no identifiable allusion to the plan in folio 42, le‑hand side.

PRELIMINARY STUDY

LXXV

On the content Had the author had the chance to prepare the manuscript for publication, he would no doubt have made some indications as to the content of the different parts of his text, by way of a sum‑ mary. I did not wish to introduce any indication in the text itself, in ac‑ cordance with my criteria of restricting my own interventions, but I have tried to compensate for this lack by elaborating a summary of the content of the work which I have situated before the beginning of the edition.

Some observations on the translation of the Latin text In the translation of the text I have allowed myself to take a greater number of liberties than in the Latin text; these liberties refer, in some cases, to punctuation and an improvement in the style, which is, on some occasions, excessively paratactic and on other occasions the sentences are too long. In any case as a basic translation criterion I have always proceeded in respect for the character of the text which, in my opinion, aims, first and foremost, at clarity of expression, within the framework of a style which is formally very concise but which shows a great lexical wealth. A good example of this lexical wealth is the number of terms which the author uses to describe different enclosures: cubiculi, exe‑ drae, cellae, gazophilacii. I have tried at all times to reflect this richness of lexus with different terms and I have also aimed to respect the stylistic sobriety. To find the exact equivalents of technical terms has oen proved a difficult task. I trust that subsequent studies on the text carried out by other experts will compensate for any inaccuracies. ****

LXXVI

The Temple of Solomon

Finally, in conclusion, and having described the problems and de‑ ciphered the solutions, I will enunciate the main contributions of this work: – The conception and unitary presentation of a work which was disperse in its transmission. – The assignation of a continuous numbering to the edition and to the facsimile. – The insertion in the continuous text of the textual elements contained in the auxiliary sheets. – The different editorial interventions which permit the trans‑ formation of a text in dra condition, on occasion illegible, to a normalised text. With this edition, I hope to have achieved the objective with which I set out: to combine fidelity to the author with the editorial intervention in the manuscript and with its transfer to a language different to that in which it was wrien.

FACSIMILE

ISAAC NEWTON

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam (Babson 434)

EXPLANATIONS OF THE FACSIMILE

Here we offer a summary of some important aspects which were already dealt with in the preliminary study, in order to facilitate an independent use of the study. The original manuscript does not have continuous numbering; that which appears in the facsimile, in the lower margin of this book, is the editor’s own. It is constituted of two blocks of booklets formed by sheets of paper folded in four parts, and by three loose folio size sheets. The sheets which are quarter size contain a continuous text on the right‑hand pages; the le‑hand pages are reserved by the author to, as the need arises, insert text in the right‑hand ones. The folio size pages, numbered as ff. 8‑11, contain text on both the recto and verso sides, and the page numbered as folio 42 contains two plans only on the recto side. Given the special characteristics of the manuscript, the editor numbers only the pages which contain continuous text on the quar‑ ter folios (right‑hand pages) and she does not number those reserved for insertions, as their text is inserted in the corresponding right‑ hand pages. For the folio size pages, which have continuous text on both sides without any space being reserved for insertions, the editor follows the same criterion of assigning numbers to each page with continuous text. For further information on these explanations cf. pp. LV‑LIX and LXXIII‑LXXIV of this work. Only the pages which contain text have been reproduced photo‑ graphically, although a graphic frame has also been assigned to the

LXXX

The Temple of Solomon

right‑hand ones which the author reserved for insertions, but did not use. For the dimensions of the original manuscript cf. p. LIV of this work. The quarter size pages (ff. 1‑7, 12‑41 and 42‑69) have been re‑ produced in their actual size, the folio size pages (8‑11) are reproduced in a reduced format due to the necessities of adaptation of the format of the book and on page 42 le and right the approximate size of the folio in a horizontal position is reproduced.

Cover manuscript

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

1

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

2

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

3

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

4

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

5

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

6

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

7

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

8

9

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

10

11

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

12

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

13

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

14

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

15

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

16

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

17

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

18

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

19

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

20

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

21

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

22

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

23

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

24

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

25

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

26

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

27

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

28

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

29

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

30

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

31

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

32

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

33

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

34

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

35

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

36

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

37

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

38

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

39

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

40

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

41

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

42

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

43

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

44

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

45

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

46

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

47

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

48

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

49

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

50

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

51

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

52

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

53

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

54

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

55

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

56

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

57

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

58

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

59

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

60

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

61

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

62

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

63

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

64

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

65

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

66

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

67

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

68

The Temple of Solomon

FACSIMILE

69

ISAAC NEWTON

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam in quibus agitur de forma Sanctuarii Judaici EDITIO PRINCEPS (third edition)

EXPLANATIONS OF THE EDITION Below we summarise some important aspects, which were al‑ ready dealt with in the preliminary study, in order to facilitate a pos‑ sible use of the edition independently of the study. The original manuscript does not have continuous numbering. The internal numbering of the edition, assigned by the editor, corresponds to that assigned to the facsimile and is based on a unitarian conception of the manuscript, once the problems of composition have been re‑ solved (cf. pp. LV‑LIX and LXXIII‑LXXIV of this work). The editorial option of aributing numbering exclusively to the right‑hand pages of the facsimile, on the sheets which are the size of a quarter of a folio, is based on the fact that the author reserves the le‑hand ones for, as the need arises, inserting text into the right‑ hand pages. That is, the pages on the right are the guide to the con‑ tinuity of the text and those on the le are auxiliary. The pages numbered 8‑11, contain text on the obverse and reverse. For further information on this question cf. p. LXXIII‑LXXIV of this work. The different editorial interventions, which make the passage of a text from its dra state to that of a normalised text possible, have been presided by the wish to remain faithful to the text and combined with the desire to offer a nitid text, without the burden of an excessively broad critical appartus (cf. p. LVI of this work). The manuscript, which is missing a final check by the author, in‑ troduces almost no indication of the content of its different parts. The editor aims to make up for this limitation by offereing a sum‑ mary of the work which is found on the next page.

SUMMARY* I 1‑6 Title of the work and introduction where its religious motive is expressed (1). General measurements of the Tabernacle of Moses and of the Temple of Solomon, which are double that of the Temple of Moses (1‑3). Description of the second Temple with some allusions to the works carried out in the times of Zerubbabel, Cyrus, Simon the Just and Herod (3‑6). 6‑12 The description of the courtyards, according to the vision of Eze‑ kiel, begins (6). Dimensions, according to Ezekiel, of the gates of ei‑ ther courtyard illustrated with a plan; the beginning of the shortest commentary of the vision of Ezekiel (8). Dimensions of the inner courtyard and the outer one with its gates (8‑10). Extension of the commentary to some verses which were commented previously (11). II Commentary (12‑69) 13‑41 Description of the altar with interpolations which sometimes cla‑ rify where the errors in the tradition stem from (13‑14). Description of the Temple with particular emphasis on the porticos; confronta‑ tion of the different sources and discussion on their measurements with clarifying or expanding interpolations; it also describes what should be corrected in Ezekiel’s vision in order to imagine the Tem‑ ple of Solomon through his words (14‑41). *

The numbers refer to the internal numbering of the edition.

74

The Temple of Solomon

43‑57 Extensive commentary on the vision of Ezekiel illustrated with plans and interpolations: chapters 40, 1‑49; 41, 1‑26; 42, 1‑20; 43, 1‑7; 46, 19‑24. 58‑69 The author completes the description of the Temple of Solomon comparing all the Temples amongst themselves and adding what Ezekiel omied in relation to the Temples of Solomon and Herod.

[fol. 1] Prolegomena ad LEXICI PROPHETICI partem secundam,1 in quibus agitur De forma Sanctuarii Judaici Constitutionibus legalibus futura adumbrata esse in confesso est apud omnes et id Paulus Apostolus abunde satis testatur (Col. 2, 17 et Heb. 8, 5 et 9, 23). Inde fit ut constitutiones illae fuerint aptius rerum systema quam Mundus naturalis a quo Prophetae typos desumerent, utque Apoc. ejusmodi typis quam maxime abundet, atque ita ut constitutiones illae et Apocalypsis tamquam gemina de iisdem rebus prophetia se mutuo explicent neque possint seorsim satis intelligi. Est enim liber ille signatus in manu Sedentis in throno ipse liber legis, ut posthac ostendetur, et hujus sigilla solvuntur in Apocalypsi. Considerandus est igitur jam mundus Israeliticus ejusque partium et ceremoniarum significatio exponenda. Et ante omnia Sanctuarium in quo legalia peragebantur speculandum est, quod quidem triplex fuit: Tabernaculum usque ad Solomonem, Templum primum usque ad captivitatem Babylonicam ac Templum secundum usque ad captivitatem sub Romanis. Cognoscenda est horum forma si velimus significationem recte exequi. Tabernaculi locus sanctissimus fuit decem cubitos latus totidemque longus, locus sanctus decem cubitos latus viginti longus, altare aureum cubiti unius longitudine et latitudine, altare magnum

1 Below appears crossed out text which we edit due to its special interest: continens expositionem allusionem ad mundum mysticum populi Israelis. Sect. Cf. p. LIV.

[fol. 1] Prolegomena to the second part of the LEXICON OF THE PROPHETS1 dealing with the shape of the Jewish Sanctuary All authors recognise that the things of the future show themsel‑ ves as an outline in legislative organisation, a fact to which the Apos‑ tle Paul (Col. 2: 17 and Heb. 8: 5 and 9: 23) bears ample witness. From here we can deduce that such an organisation was a beer system than the natural world for the prophets to take their images from; it also explains that Apocalypse takes the majority of its images of this type and that that legislative organisation and likewise Apocalypse, as it prophesises on the same things, explain each other mutually and can not be totally understood separately. The sealed book in the hand of he who sits on the throne is thus the same book of the law, as will later be demonstrated, and its seals are opened in Apocalypse. Thus, we must consider the Israelite world and expose the significa‑ tion of its parts and its ceremonies. And above all, we must examine the Sanctuary, where the legal actions were carried out, which was triple: the Tabernacle until the time of Solomon, the first Temple until the Babylonic captivity and the second Temple until the captivity under the Romans. We must know the shape of these if we are to understand their meaning. The most holy place of the Tabernacle was ten cubits wide and ten cubits long, the Holy place ten cubits wide and twenty cubits long, the golden altar was one cubit in length and width, the great altar was

1 Below appears crossed out text which we edit due to its special interest: containing the allegorical exhibition of the mystical world of the people of Israel. Sect.

The Temple of Solomon

77

[fol. 2] quinque cubitos longum ac totidem latum, et atrium Tabernaculi quinquaginta cubitos latum et centum cubitos longum. Concipe hoc atrium linea transversa divisum esse in duo quadrata et in quadrato occidentali tabernaculum stetisse, altare vero in centro quadrati orientalis. Quadratum orientale distinctionis gratia dicatur atrium Sacerdotum, et alterum quadratum in quo tabernaculum consistit nominetur locus separatus namque ita nominabantur stante templo. In centro loci sanctissimi collocatur Arca et in centro Tabernaculi totius altare aureum, velo in media distantia inter altare et Arcam pendente. In medio autem loci sancti ad latus australe concipe candelabrum septemplex stetisse et mensam auream e regione ad latus boreale; labrum denique seu aeneum mare in atrio Sacerdotum inter Tabernaculum et altare versus Austrum (Exod. 30, 18; 1 Reg. 7, 39). Mosaicas arearum proportiones Solomon in fabrica Templi retinuit sed in mensuris duplicatis. Et eandem fabricam quam Deus per David revelaverat Solomoni (1 Chr. 28, 19). Deus idem postquam templum illud subversum fuerat ostendit Ezekieli, retentis quamtum sentio mensuris omnibus. Erat itaque Templi primi locus sanctissimus viginti cubitos longus et latus totidem (1 Reg. 6, 20; Ezek. 41, 4). Locus sanctus viginti cubitos longus et quadraginta latus (1 Reg. 6, 2. 17; Ezek. 41, 2) altare aureum duos cubitos longum et latum totidem (Ezek. 41, 22), Solomone scilicet altare Mosaicum materiis novis tegente (1 Reg. 6, 20). Altare magnum superne in circuitu loci focarii longum et latum a2 cubitos decem, licet inferne duplo longius et latius (2 Paralip. 4, 1; Ezek. 43). Atrium Sacerdotum centum cubitos longum et centum latum (Ezek. 40, 47) locus separatus itidem centum cubitos longum et centum latum (Ezek. 41, 13. 14. 15). Unde atrium utrumque conjunctim sive atrium Templi respondens atrio tabernaculi erat centum cubitos latum et ducentos longum. Vestibulum etiam ante templum aedificavit Solomon viginti cubitos longum et decem circiter vel accuratius undecim cubitos latum (1 Reg. 6, 3; Ezek. 40, 49).

2

The letter a refers to section a of the Commentary, fol. 13 of the facsimile. For an explanation of this editorial hypothesis, cf. p. LVI of this work.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

77

[fol. 2] five cubits long and five wide, and the courtyard of the Ta‑ bernacle was fiy cubits wide and one hundred cubits long. Imagine that this courtyard was divided by a transversal line in two squares, and that the Tabernacle was in the western square and the altar was doubtlessly in the centre of the eastern square. The eastern square would, in order to distinguish it, have been called the Courtyard of the Priests, and the other square, where the Tabernacle was, would be ca‑ lled a separate place, as this was what it was called when the Temple existed. In the centre of the most holy place the Ark was placed, and in the centre of the whole Tabernacle the golden altar, the veil falling half way between the altar and the Ark. In the middle of the holy place, to‑ wards the south side, imagine that there was the seven branched lamp stand and the golden table in front, towards the north side; finally, the basin or brazen sea, in the Courtyard of the Priests between the Taber‑ nacle and the altar towards the Auster (Exod. 30: 18; Kings 7: 39). Solomon maintained the mosaic proportions of the areas in the cons‑ truction of the Temple, though duplicating the measurements. And this same construction, which God had revealed to Solomon through David (1 Chr. 28:19), God himself, aer the destruction of the Temple, showed it to Ezekiel maintaining all the measurements, for what I know. And so the most holy place of the first Temple was twenty cubits long and twenty wide (1 Kings 6: 20; Ezek. 41: 4). The holy place, twenty cubits long and forty wide (1 Kings 6: 2. 17; Ezek. 41: 2), the golden altar, two cubits long and two cubits wide (Ezek. 41: 22); Solomon doubtlessly co‑ vered the altar of Moses with new materials (1 Kings 6: 20). The great altar, in the upper part in the circuit of the fireplace, was ten cubits long and wide a2, but the lower part was twice the length and twice the width (2 Chr. 4: 1; Ezek. 43). The Courtyard of Priests was one hundred cubits long and one hundred cubits wide (Ezek. 40: 47), the separate place was also one hundred cubits long and wide, (Ezek. 41: 13. 14. 15). Thus one and the other courtyard together, or the courtyard of the Tem‑ ple which corresponds to the courtyard of the Tabernacle, was one hun‑ dred cubits wide and two hundred long. The front vestibule was also built by Solomon, twenty cubits long and approximately ten, or more exactly eleven, cubits wide (1 Kings 6: 3; Ezek. 40: 49). 2

The letter a refers to section a of the Commentary, fol. 13 of the facsimile. For an explanation of this editorial hypothesis, cf. p. LVI of this work.

78

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 3] Atrium vero cinxit aedificio splendido et rursus ad majorem distantiam alio splendidiore aedificio, intercedente undique spatio atrii exterioris quasi 100 cubitos lato. Namque duo constituit atria, interius sacerdotum et exterius populi, quod etiam atrium magnum dicebatur (1 Reg. 6, 36 et 7, 12; Ezek. 10, 3; 40, 17. 19. 20. 23 etc. et 44, 17. 19). Et cubiculis utrumque cinxit (1 Paralip. 28, 12; Ezek. 40, 17. 44). Erant autem atria illa concentrica, eo quod portae omnes atrii utriusque aequales erant et ab exteriore facie ad interiorem faciem quinquaginta cubitos longae et inter portam unam quamque atrii exterioris et oppositam portam atrii interioris intercedebant cubiti centum (Ezek. 40), ita ut atrii exterioris latera singula extrinsecus fuerint cubitos quingentos longa (Ezek. 42, 20). Et his atriis plura non memorantur in Templo Solomonis praeter atriola coquorum et suburbanum quinquaginta cubitis latum, quo totum cingebatur (Ezek. 45, 2). Porro in peribolo atrii interioris locabantur sacerdotes. Summus sacerdos cum Vicariis suis et Synedrio magno occupabant latus dignissimum ad orientem. Sequebantur ad aquilonem et austrum Praefecti ministeriis templi et altaris, deinde et viginti quatuor Principes Sacerdotum singuli proprium habentes cubiculum et ultimo ad latera loci separati Sacerdotes inferiores cubicula communia illic habentes ubi comedebant sacrificia et vestes sacras induebant. Exterius in atrio magno versabatur populus omnis et in cubiculis quibus illud cingebatur sacrificia manducabat. Babyloniis hoc templum evertentibus Zerubbabel iisdem fere fundamentis ut par erat sed magnificentia minori templum denuo aedificavit una cum atrio interiore quod ad ministerium Templi necessarium erat. Sed cum atrium exterius, longe magnificentissimum quidem et amplissimum ac tribubus universis destinatum, nec facile restitui posset, nec brevibus duorum tribuum reliquiis necessarium esset, ejus loco extructum est ad orientale latus atrii sacerdotum atrium novum quod populo reduci quidem sufficeret, cuius tamen angusta fundamenta seniores qui templum prius viderant lugebant vehementer (Ezra. 3, 12). Despectam aedificiorum formam minime lugebant. Haec nondum surrexerant.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

78

[fol. 3] He surrounded the courtyard with a splendid building and aer, further away, with another even more splendid building, media‑ ting on all sides an outer courtyard space of almost one hundred cubits wide. So, thus, he built two courtyards, one innermost one, of the Priests and another, outer one, of the people, which was also called the great courtyard (1 Kings 6: 36 and 7: 12; Ezek. 10: 3; 40: 17. 19. 20. 23, etc., and 44: 17.19). And he surrounds both with rooms (1 Chr. 28: 12; Ezek. 40: 17. 44). But those courtyards were concentric, therefore all the gates of one and the other were the same; from the outer side to the inner side was fiy cubits long, and between any of the gates of the outer courtyard and the opposite gate of the inner courtyard, measured one hundred cubits (Ezek. 40), so that each one of the sides of the outer courtyard on the outside were five hundred cubits long (Ezek. 42: 20). And of these courtyards there is no recollection in the Temple of Solo‑ mon more than of the small courtyard of the cooks and a open space of fiy cubits in width, which surrounded the entire area. (Ezek. 45: 2). Likewise, in the peribolos of the inner courtyard the Priests gathe‑ red. The High Priest with his Vicars and the Great Sanhedrin occupied the most dignified side to the East. He was followed, to the Aquilon and Auster, by the Prefects in charge of the ministries of the Temple and the altar, aer, also, twenty‑four Princes of the Priests, each one of which had his own chambers, and finally, to the sides of the separate place, the lower Priests had common chambers where they ate the sa‑ crifices and donned the sacred vestments. Further outside, in the great courtyard, it was common to find all the people and they consumed the sacrifices in the chambers which surrounded it. When the Babylonians destroyed this Temple, Zerubbabel built ano‑ ther Temple with almost the same foundations, very similar but less mag‑ nificent, as well as an inner courtyard which was necessary for the ministry of the Temple. But as the outermost courtyard, doubtlessly the richest by far and the biggest, destined for all the tribes, could not easily be rebuilt nor was it necessary for the few of the two tribes which remai‑ ned, instead, to the eastern side of the courtyard of the Priests, a new courtyard which was sufficient for the returning people was built; but the foundations of this were so narrow that elders, who had seen the pre‑ vious Temple, wept vehemently. (Ezra 3: 12). They did not weep for the disgraceful appearance of the buildings as these had not yet been built.

79

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 4] Incidebat hic luctus in ipsum initium positorum fundamentorum. Limites tam angustos in locum atrii spatiosissimi succedere dolebant. Nam sanctuarium Zerubbabelis quoad magnitudinem cum priore collatum res nihili videbatur (Hagg. 2, 3). Certe atrium magnum numquam resurrexit in usum Judaeorum. Zerubbabel vero quae Judaeis suis in cultum necessaria erant vix tandem aedificare valuit, tantum abfuit ut in usum gentium conderet

[fol. 5] atrium sumptuosius. Sed neque Cyrus aliquid amplius aedificari voluit. Decrevit enim ut Domus Dei aedificaretur altitudine sexaginta cubitorum et latitudine sexaginta cubitorum utque tres essent ordines lapidum rotundorum et ordo ligni novi, (Ezra. 6, 3. 4). Per tres ordines lapidum et ordinem ligni intelligi ambitum atrii interioris manifestum est ex 1 Reg. 6, 36 ubi atrium illud sic aedificatum esse describitur. Jussit ergo Cyrus ut Templum et atrium interius aedificaretur et nihil praeterea. Namque atrium novum simplici muro extructum vix dignum erat quod Cyrus in edicto suo adeo conciso poneret. Mansit autem hoc Sanctuarium sine atrio magno ad usque tempora Alexandri Magni et ultra, ut ex Hecataeo illorum temporum scriptore gentili liquet. Is enim Judaeam urbemque Hierosolymorum et Sanctuarium describendo peribolum atrii interioris cum portis suis et quicquid interius est commemorat, de peribolo vero exterioris atrii ne unum quidem verbum habet, quamvis peribolus ille postquam surrexit magnificentior erat et omnium oculos ad se magis traheret. Hunc igitur Judaei postea excitarunt, nimirum sub Simone filio Oniae Pontifice maximo quem Simeonem Justum appellare solent. Namque is in diebus suis munivit templum. Et ab ipso fundata est altitudo duplicis [porticus], munitio [illa] excelsa periboli templi. (Ecclesiastic. 50, 1. 2). Tandem vero Herodes et ejus sucessores opus tantum aedificiis splendidioribus perfecerunt. In hoc templo viri Israel admiebantur in marginem orientalem atrii sacerdotum, indeque margo ille dicebatur atrium Israelis. In atrium novum quod Zerubbabel loco atrii magni condiderat quodque atrium

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

79

[fol. 4] The weeping began at the very moment of the beginning of the laying of the foundations. They lamented that such narrow measurements should replace the place of the very spacious court‑ yard, as the sanctuary of Zerubbabel, compared with the previous one, seemed of lile importance. (Hag. 2: 3). It is true that the Great Courtyard was never rebuilt for the Jews to use it. Even Zerrubabel, who finally allowed the building which was necessary for the cult of the Jews, refused to build a more sump‑ tuous courtyard for the Gentiles.

[fol. 5] Nor did Cyrus want another bigger one to be built, decre‑ eing that the House of God be built with a height of sixty cubits and a width of sixty cubits so that there were three rows of large stones and one row of new timber (Ezra 6: 3. 4). It is clear that by the three rows of stones and the row of timber we can understand the seing of the inner courtyard according to 1 Kings 6: 36, where it is described that the courtyard was built such. And so, Cyrus ordered the Temple, the innermost court‑ yard and no more be built. In this way the new courtyard, built with a simple wall, was scarcely deemed a mention in such a concise edict by Cyrus. This sanctuary continued without a large courtyard until the times of Alexander the Great and later, according to what we can deduce from Hecataeus, a pagan writer of the time. He recalls Judea, the city of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary describing the peribolos of the inner courtyard with its gates, and the innermost part, but he men‑ tions not a word of the outer peribolos of the courtyard, although aer the reconstruction of that peribolos it was more splendid and aracted more aention. So, thus the Jews built this at a later date, doubtlessly under Simeon, the son of Onias, Pontifex Maximus, normally referred to as Simon the Just. He in his time fortified the Temple and he himself built the height of the double [portico], the high buress of the peribolos of the Temple (Eccl. 50: 1. 2). Finally Herod and his successors only completed the work with more sumptuous buildings. In this Temple, the males of Israel were admied in the eastern margin of the courtyard of the Priests, and for this reason that mar‑ gin was known as the courtyard of Israel. The new courtyard foun‑ ded by Zerubbabel on the site of the Great Courtyard and which was

80

The Temple of Solomon

faeminarum dicebatur, intrabant tam faeminae quam viri. Et in atrium magnum intrabant etiam gentes. Qui solum atrii

[fol. 6] illius a tempore captivitatis extra novi sanctuarii limites positum nulloque aedificiorum peribolo defensum libere calcaverant, postquam peribolus ille sub Simeone Juxto vel potius sub Maccabaeorum Principibus surrexit, pergebant solum idem calcare ut prius, longo usu et oblivione ritus antiquioris jus quoddam confirmante. Quod Solomon atrium et majus et magnificentius in usum idolatrarum quam in usum populi proprii condiderit, ullave ratione in sacro aedificio consuluerit cultui idololatrarum, filiorum perditionis, quorum preces deus abominatur, quorum societas Judaeis interdicta fuit (Act. 10, 28 et 11, 3; Gal. 2, 12), quorum etiam numerus in Judaea per illa tempora comtemnendus erat, absurde fingitur. Talibus introitum in locum sanctum expugnatio Judaeae et dominatio gentilis proculdubio patefecit. Unde atrium gentium et, a prophetia Isaiae (2, 2) perperam intellecta, Mons Domus nominabatur atrium illud ibique tamquam in loco profano populus mercaturam excercebant, et nomine sancti designabant sanctuarium interius quasi hoc exterius atrium sanctum non fuisset. Quae omnia praevisa Deus per prophetam Ezekiel sic corrigit. In templi delineatione omiit atrium faeminarum, ac duobus tantum atriis descriptis dicit murum exterioris cubitos quingentos longum latumque dividere inter sanctuarium et locum profanum (Ezek. 42, 20) et rursus: Ista est lex Domus, in summitate montis; omnes fines ejus in circuitu Sanctum Sanctorum est. Haec est lex Domus (43, 12). Dein sacerdotes in atrio interiore collocat et populum omnem in exteriore (44, 19 et 46, 20. 24) et Principem populumque non permiit ingredi in marginem orientalem atrii sacerdotum sed ad limen portae interioris orientalis stantes adorare jubet (46, 2. 3). Judaeosque ob admissas in sanctuarium gentes sic reprehendit. Haec dicit Dominus Deus sufficiant vobis omnia scelera vestra domus Israel, eo quod induxistis

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

80

called the courtyard of the women was open to both men and women. And to the great courtyard even the gentiles entered. Those who had freely trodden the floor of that courtyard,

[fol. 6] situated since the times of the captivity outside the limits of the new sanctuary and not protected by any peribolos of buildings, aer a peribolos was erected under Simeon the Just, or beer still under the Princes of the Maccabees, persisted in walking on the floor as they had done before, a certain right being consolidated by the length of use and the old rite being forgoen. It is absurdly imagined that Solo‑ mon had founded, for the use of the idolaters, a bigger and richer court‑ yard than that used by the people themselves or for whatever reason had been used for the cult of the idolaters, of the sons of perdition whose preces are rejected by God, with whom the Jews were forbidden to deal (Acts 10: 28 and 11: 3; Gal 2: 12) and the excessive number of whom was despised in Judea at that time. The capture of Judea and the pagan domination doubtlessly opened the door for these people to enter the holy place. For this reason this courtyard would be called the courtyard of the gentiles and, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (2: 2) incorrectly understood, the Mount of the House; there, like in a profane place, the people traded. And the inner sanctuary was called holy, as if the outer courtyard had not been holy. God, foreseeing all these things, corrected them so via the prophet Ezekiel. In the description of the Temple he omits the Courtyard of the Women and he only says of the two courtyards described that a wall of five hundred cubits long and wide on the outside divided the space between the sanctuary and the profane place (Ezek. 42: 20) and again he says: This is the law of the House, upon the top of the mount; all the limit the‑ reof round is in the circuit of the Most Holy. This is the law of the House (43: 12). Finally he places the priests in the inner courtyard and all the pe‑ ople in the outer one (44: 19 and 46: 20‑24), and he does not permit that the Prince and the people enter to the eastern margin of the Courtyard of the Priests, but rather orders that the adoration be carried out from the threshold of the inner eastern door (46: 2‑3). And he thus repri‑ mands the Jews for having admied the gentiles to the sanctuary: This the Lord God says: let it suffice you of all your abominations, house of Israel,

81

The Temple of Solomon

filios alienos incircumcisos corde et incircumcisos carne ut sint in sanctuario meo et polluant Domum meam interdum offertis vos panem meum adipem et sanguinem et disolvistis pactum meum in omnibus abominationibus vestris. Et non servastis custodiam sanctuarii mei sed posuistis custodes custodiae meae in sanctuario meo vobismet ipsis. Sic dicit Dominus Jehova: Omnis filius alienigenae incircumcisus corde et incircumcisus carne non ingredietur sanctuarium meum ex omni filio alienigenae qui in medio filiorum Israel. Haec (Ezek. 443, 6. 10) annis quatuordecim post excidium templi primi. Huc spectat etiam

[fol. 7] quod cum Isaias non de gentibus idololatricis sed de Judaeis et proselytis futuris conjunctim agens, dixerat: Domus mea Domus orationis vocabitur cunctis populis: Christus haec verba applicuit ad atrium exterius, deque ejus profanatione Judaeos graviter reprehendit quantum tempora tulerunt. Nam gentiles idololatricos quorum preces abominatio sunt non expulit ne videretur authoritatem4 regis Judaeorum intempestive contra Romanos exercere. Ibi igitur exclusis5 gentibus collocandus est populus omnis et in atrium interius neutiquam admiendus nisi ubi per portam austri vel aquilonis ingrediuntur sacrificandi causa; adeunt cubicula docentium (Jer. 36, 10).

[fol. 8] Dimensiones portarum atrii utriusque (Ezek. 40) schemate illustratae6. Vers 5 Mensus est Angelus latitudinem muri extimi AS calamo uno 6 cubitorum et altitudinem ejus calamo uno. V. 6 Dein liminis Portae latitudinem BC calamo uno et alteram limenis latitudinem CT calamo uno.

3 Lower right‑hand edge of folio is damaged. We have supplied the biblical reference. 4 We respect the spelling of the manuscript; cf. also author (ff. 14, 32 and 37). 5 In the manuscript we can read exlusis. 6 Here there is a plan, cf. fol. 8 of the facsimile. In the manuscript there is no sign which allows us to link folios 8 to 11 with the previous ones. Their insertion here is our decision (cf. pp. LVII‑LVIII of this work).

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

81

you have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my Sanctuary, to pollute my House, you offer my bread, the fat and the blood, you have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. You have not kept the charge of my Sanctuary, but you have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. Thus said the Lord Jehovah: No son of a stranger of no son of a stranger that is among the children of Israel, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh shall enter in my Sanctuary (Ezek. 44). These events happened fourteen years aer the first Temple fell. This is also referred to

[fol. 7] in what he says with Isaiah when not speaking of the idola‑ trous peoples, but rather of the Jews and future converts: My House will be called the House of prayer by all the peoples. Christ applied these words to the outermost courtyard and he strongly reprimanded the Jews for its profanation, as strongly as the times allowed. Likewise to the ido‑ latrous gentiles, whose preces are abominable, he did not expulse them so that it would not seem that he was untimely in the exercise of his authority as King of the Jews against the Romans. Therefore, all the people, excluding the gentiles, should be there and not, under any cir‑ cumstances, be allowed into the inner courtyard, unless they were en‑ tering by the South and the North doors in order to make sacrifices, or when they were going to the teachers’ chambers. (Jer. 36: 10).

[fol. 8] Dimensions of the doors of one and the other courtyard (Ezek. 40) illustrated with a diagram3. Verse 5 The Angel measured the width of the outer wall AS with a measuring rod of six cubits and the height with a measuring rod. V. 6 Aerwards, the width of the threshold of the door BC, a me‑ asuring rod and the other width of the threshold CT, a measuring rod.

3 Here there is a plan, cf. fol. 8 of the facsimile. In the manuscript there is no sign which allows us to link folios 8 to 11 with the previous ones. Their insertion here is our decision (cf. pp. LVII‑LVIII of this work).

The Temple of Solomon

82

V. 7 Tunc aequalium trium Janitoribus destinatorum cubiculorum hinc et totidem inde longitudines DE, FG, HJ et latitudines EZ et singulas calamo uno. Et interstitia cubiculorum EF, GH singula cubitorum quinque, nec non limen Portae KL calami unius: V. 8 Et alteram ejusdem liminis latitudinem LV calami unius V. 9 Et vestibulum portae MN octo cubitorum et frontem ejus OP duorum cubitorum V. 11 Et latitudinem liminis extimi OY decem cubitorum et latitudinem portae NX tridecim cubitorum. Huc usque Angelus ordine omnia mensuravit, jam retrogresus mensuravit. V. 12 Et marginis seu gradus ante thalamos latitudinem rs cubiti unius. V. 13 Et latitudinem portae a pariete cubiculi ad parietem cubiculi inclusive, progrediendo secundum lineam quae tendit ab ostio portae ac ad ostium Rd nimirum latitudinem aR viginti quinque cubitorum. V. 14 et 16 Et fecit frontes ad interiora portae per spatium sexaginta cubitorum usque ad frontem Atrii OP in circuitu per flexuras Portae. Spatium illud est BC (6) + CD (3 ½) + DJ (28) + JK (3 ½) + KL (6) + LM (3 ½) + MN (8) NO (1 ½) = 60. V. 15 Et a facie portae extimae ad faciem portae intimae id est a B ad P, erant cubiti 50. Nimirum BC (6) + DJ (28) + KL (6) + MN (8) + OP (2). V. 17, 18 Quibus omnibus intra porta dimensis ducitur Ezekiel in atrium et jam primum videt cubiculos 30 undique in pavimento inferiore (fig. 27). Ad latera portae erat pavimentum inferius BH: in eo quinque cubiculi, et sic in reliquis ejus modi sex pavimentis, ita ut omnino cubiculi sint triginta. Et hi omnes columnis fulti sunt (42, 6) ut populus tempore pluviae se illo recipiat. V. 19 Et Angelus mensus est duarum portarum orientalium Atrii utriusque distantiam minimam BC centum cubitorum. Hic pro et ad Aquilonem, lege cum Septuaginta: et duxit me ad Aquilonem.

7

Cf. fol. 9 of the facsimile.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

82

V. 7 Aer this, the longitude DE, FG, HJ of either side of the three same rooms destined for the gatekeepers, and the width ER etc., each a measuring rod. And the spaces between the rooms EF, GH, each one five cubits, and the threshold of the door, a measuring rod KL. V. 8 And the other width of this threshold LV, one measuring rod. V. 9 And the vestibule of the door MN was eight cubits and the front thereof OP was two cubits. V. 11 And the width of the outer threshold OY was ten cubits and the width of the gate NX was thirteen cubits. Until this point the Angel measured everything with an order, he measured them as he was going back. V. 12 And the width rs of the limit of the front edges of the cham‑ bers was one cubit. V. 13 And the width of the gate from the wall of the room to the wall of the room inclusive , advancing according to the line which goes from the entrance to the gate ac to the entrance Rd was, effec‑ tively, twenty five cubits aR. V. 14 and 16 And he did the facades to the inside of the gate by a space of sixty cubits to the façade of the courtyard OP all around, by the rims of the gates. That space is: BC (6) + CD (3 ½) + DJ (28) + JK (3 ½) + KL (6) + LM (3 ½) + MN (8) + NO (1 ½) = 60. V 15 and from the face of the outer gate to the face of the inner‑ most gate, that is, from B to P, was fiy cubits. Surely BC (6) + DJ(28) + KL (6)+ MN (8) + OP (2). V. 17, 18 Having made all these measurements inside the gate, Ezekiel was led to the courtyard and he first saw the thirty rooms from all sides on the lower floor (fig. 24). To the sides of the door was the lower floor BH; here there were five rooms and so on, likewise, on the other six floors, so that in total there were thirty rooms. And all of these were supported by columns (42: 6), so that the people could take refuge there from the rain. V. 19 And the Angel measured the minimum distance BC, of one hundred cubits, from the two eastern gates of either courtyard. Here, instead of and towards the North, read with Septuagint: and he led me to the North. 4 Cf.

fol. 9 of the facsimile.

83

The Temple of Solomon

V. 20, 21, 22, 23 Porta borealis F Atrii exterioris est 50 cubitos longa 25 lata et in omnibus similis et aequalis portae orientali A. Et portarum occidentalium utriusque Atrii distantia minima FG est centum cubitorum. V. 24, 25, 26, 27 Porta australis reliquis similis et aequalis, distatque ab opposita porta australi interioris Atrii cubitis centum. Et ad has tres portas Atrii exterioris ascenditur per septem gradus. V. 28 Et deinceps usque ad V. 37 Porta australis, orientalis et borealis interioris Atrii similes et aequales sunt portis exterioris Atrii, et ad has tres ascenditur per octo gradus. Vers. 30 deest in Septuaginta et corrupta repetitio est ultimi periodi versus praecedentis, posito scilicet quinque pro viginti quinque. V. 39, 40, 41, 42 In porta boreali et ante eam sunt octo tabulae lapideae in usum sacrificiorum, quales in fig. 2 describuntur. V. 44, 45, 46 Ad latus hujus portae borealis erat Atrium RμmN, et in eo exedra f sacerdotibus templi custodiam habentibus destinata, et similis est exedra juxta portam australem Sacerdotibus altaris custodiam habentibus. Hae exedrae respiciunt Atrium interius. V. 47 Atrii interioris Jklo longitudo KJ centum cubitorum, latitudo JL totidem. Ergo atria duo concentrica sunt. V. 48, 49 pr = 5 cub. pq = 6 cub. st = 11 cub. (vel secundum Septuaginta = 12 cubiti) sv = 20 cub. Et per decem gradus ascenditur in porticum templi. Cap. 41. V. 1, 2 wx = 6. xs = 10. ya = 20. yz = 40 cub. V. 3, 4 bd = 2 cub. bc = 6 cub. bc + cavitate parietis ostium capiente = 7. eg = ef = 20 cub. V. 5, 6, Latitudo parietis templi usque ad fundum primi cubiculi (6 cub.) una cum ulteriore latitudine cubiculi adjuncti (4 cub.) efficit latitudinem aB = 10 cub. Erant autem ejusmodi cubiculi seu gazophylacia 30 circa templum in fundo et tres eorum ordines sursum, id est in totum gazophylacia 90 (vide Joseph. l 8. Antiq. c 3) et superiora

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

83

V. 20, 21, 22, 23 The gate of the outer north courtyard F is fiy cu‑ bits long, twenty‑five cubits wide and all similar and the same as the eastern gate A. And the minimum distance FG of the western gates of either courtyard is one hundred cubits. V. 24, 25, 26, 27 The south gate is similar and the same as the others, and the distance from the opposite gate to the south gate of the inner courtyard is one hundred cubits. And to these three gates of the outer courtyard one ascends seven steps. V. 28 And, aerwards, until verse 37, the south, east and north gates of the inner courtyard are similar and the same as the gates of the outer courtyard, and to these three one ascends eight steps. V. 30 This is missing in Septuagint and the repetition of the last period of the preceding verse is corrupt, where it obviously says five instead of twenty‑five. V. 39, 40, 41, 42 At the north door, just in front of it, there are eight tables of stone for use in sacrifices as described in pict. 2. V. 44, 45, 46 Beside this north door was the courtyard RμmN, and beside it the room f for the Priests who were in charge of the custody of the Temple, and there was a similar room next to the south door for the Priests who had custody of the altar. These rooms look on to the innermost courtyard. V. 47 The longitude KJ of the inner courtyard Jklo was one hun‑ dred cubits, the width JL a further one hundred cubits. Thus there were two concentric courtyards. V. 48, 49 pr = 5 cubits; pq = 6 cubits; st = 11 cubits (or according to Septuagint = 12 cubits); sv = 20 cubits. And to the portico of the Temple one ascended 10 steps. Chapter 41. V. 1, 2 wx = 6; xs = 10; ya = 20; yz = 40 cubits. V. 3, 4 bd = 2 cubits; bc = 6 cubits; bc + the wall cavity which spans the entrance = 7. eg = ef = 20 cubits. V. 5, 6, The width of the wall of the Temple to the end of the first room (6 cubits), together with the following width of the room next to it (4 cubits) give a width aB = 10 cubits. Thus there were thirty rooms or living quarters around the Temple on each floor and three floors in height, that is, ninety chambers in all (see Josephus 1. 8 Antiq. c 3)

The Temple of Solomon

84

[fol. 9]8 gazophylacia latiora erant inferioribus cedente pariete Templi in tribus humeris unius cubiti undique (vide 1 Reg. 6,5.6) ita ut primum cubiculum sit 5 cub. latum (1 Reg. 6) secundum sex, tertium septem. V. 8 Et per totam Domus altitudinem fundamenta gazophylaciorum erant sex cubitos longa ita ut tota longitudo omnium triginta gazophylaciorum in circuitu esset 180 cubitorum, congruenter ambitui templi. V. 9 Erant etiam prioribus similia et aequalia alia lateralia gazophylacia βζ exterius in circuitu templi muro δζ quinque cubitos lato adjacentia. Et spatium relictum erat inter laterales cellas templi. V. 10 Et secundum lineam quae ducitur inter cubiculos undique erat viginti cubitorum, id est structurae totius a pariete templi dimensa latitudo ωh. Mensuram hanc Ezekiel suboscure exprimit, sed simili prorsus locutione qua prius usus est (40, 13).

Let the chambers cz be of the same breadth with the other ml. And the corner courts Z, Y, X, W open on to the cloisters, and the rooms MΓ be on the side ΓP or rather PH. And make three schemes, the first for measuring gates, the second measuring the courts, the third for measuring the Temple with the cellae and Priests chambers. The side walls of the Priests chambers because of the two walks above let into it which cannot take up lesse there a cubit thereof or a cubit and a half a piece must be three or four cubits thick below at least. Deduct that from the twenty cubits foundation and there will remain about twelve cubits the breadth within. To the length of the court λν, one hundred cubits, add the thickness of the courts wall 3+3 cub. And from the sum deduct six or eight cubits the end walls and four or six cubits more for partitions and there will remain about ninety‑six cubits which will make eight square chambers of twelve cubits square: which added to four more in the half length Ζc will make twelve chambers on a side. The Jews report that Solomon’s Temple was 70 cubits broad behind lk. Of this and many other things see Drusius or Capellus de Templo in the Criticks. The same God gave the dimensions of the Tabernacle to Moses and Temple with its courts to David and Ezekiel and altered not the proportions of the area’s, but only doubled them in the Temple, abating the thickness of the walls which were not recconed. So then Solomon and Ezekiel agree, and are double to Moses.

8

The upper part of the page contains a text in English, which we reproduce exactly above, and a plan.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

84

[fol. 9]5 and the highest chambers were wider than the lowest ones, as the wall of the Temple narrowed in three ledges of a cubit each on all sides (see 1 Kings 6: 5. 6) so that the first room was five cubits wide (1 Kings 6); the second six, the third seven. V. 8 And all along the height of the House the floor of the cham‑ bers was six cubits long, so that all the length of the thirty chambers measured a total of one hundred and eighty cubits, in accordance with the perimeter of the Temple. V. 9 There were also other side chambers βζ similar and the same as the first ones, joined on the outside to the wall of the Temple δζ, which were five cubits wide. A space remained between the side rooms of the Temple. V. 10 And following the line which is drawn between the rooms there was a distance on all sides of twenty cubits, that is measuring the width ωh of all the structure from the wall of the Temple. This measurement is expressed by Ezekiel somewhat obscurely, but with a sentence completely similar to that which he used before (40: 13).

Let the chambers cz be of the same breadth with the other ml. And the corner courts Z, Y, X, W open on to the cloisters, and the rooms MΓ be on the side ΓP or rather PH. And make three schemes, the first for measuring gates, the second measuring the courts, the third for measuring the Temple with the cellae and Priests chambers. The side walls of the Priests chambers because of the two walks above let into it which cannot take up lesse there a cubit thereof or a cubit and a half a piece must be three or four cubits thick below at least. Deduct that from the twenty cubits foun‑ dation and there will remain about twelve cubits the breadth within. To the length of the court λν, one hundred cubits, add the thickness of the courts wall 3+3 cub. And from the sum deduct six or eight cubits the end walls and four or six cubits more for partitions and there will remain about ninety‑six cubits which will make eight square chambers of twelve cubits square: which added to four more in the half length Ζc will make twelve chambers on a side. The Jews report that Solomon’s Temple was 70 cubits broad behind lk. Of this and many other things see Drusius or Capellus de Templo in the Criticks. The same God gave the dimensions of the Tabernacle to Moses and Temple with its courts to David and Ezekiel and altered not the proportions of the area’s, but only doubled them in the Temple, abating the thickness of the walls which were not recconed. So then Solomon and Ezekiel agree, and are double to Moses.

5

The upper part of the page contains a text in English, which we reproduce exactly above, and a plan.

85

The Temple of Solomon

V. 11 Et ostia gazophylaciorum erant versus locum relictum hm, hinc inde se mutuo respicientia. Unum ostium versus Austrum, alterum versus Aquilonem. Et spatium relictum hmnlo erat undique quinque cubitos latum. V. 12 Et aedificii βhkl quod erat ante locum separatum βg latitudo ad occidentalem limitem, nimirum latitudo lk erat septuaginta cubitorum et aedificii murus dcl erat quinque cubitos crassus undique, et longitudo ejus hk cubitorum nonaginta, congruenter latitudini et longitudini templi et aedificiorum hinc inde. Nam latitudo templi (20) + 2 ab (20) + 2 βh (30) = 70. Et longitudo interna 62 + pariete et aedificio ad occiden. (25) + pariete ad Orientem tribus humeris cubitalibus diminuto (3) = 90. Demendi sunt enim humeri illi, ne aedificium superius producatur ultra templum. Tres illi humerorum cubiti respondent muro 3 cubitorum crasso Atrium interius et locum separatum dirimente. V. 13 Sic mensurata est Domus centum cubitorum longitudine: quam sic computo. pr una cum ornamento in facie portae est 6 cub. nam tanta est parietis crassities undique. Adde sv (20) + wx (6) + yz (40) + ze (2) + ef (20) + fx (6). Et summa erit 100 cubiti. Praeterea locum separatum kψ et aedificium cum parietibus ejus kh 100 cubitorum. V. 14 Et latitudinem faciei domus tω et loci separati Orientem versus tp + ωq id est totam Atrii latitudinem pq 100 cub. V. 15, 16 Et longitudinem aedificii contra faciem loci separati ad dorsum domus lk et spatia utrinque ls + kr id est totam Atrii latitudinem, sr 100 cub. Templum intus et vestibula Atrii, limina et fenestrae et ambulacra inter cellas undique in triplici serie contra cujusque limen strata erant ligno undique, etc.

[fol. 10] Cap. 42, 1 Speculatis ac dimensis quae in Atrio duplici interiore erant, eduxit me Angelus per transitus portae borealis mG in Atrium exterius Rl et eduxit me usque ad exedram l quae erat e regione loci separati hqmk et e regione aedificii whkg Boream versus.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

85

V. 11 And the entrances to the chambers faced the remaining space hm, from where they sit face to face. One entrance to the South, the other to North. And the remaining space hmnlo was on all sides five cubits wide. V. 12 And the width lk of the building βhkl, which was in front of the separate area βg towards the western limit, was doubtlessly seventy cubits, and the wall of the building dcl was five cubits thick all round, and its length hk was ninety cubits , in accordance with the width and length of the Temple, and of the buildings on either side. So, the width of the Temple (20) + 2 ab (20) + 2 βh (30) = 70. And the inner length (62) + (25) counting the wall and the western building, + (3) with the eastern wall taking away the three ledges of one cubit = 90. Thus, we must take away those ledges so that the tallest building is not taller than the Tem‑ ple. Those three cubits of the ledges correspond to the three cubit thick wall which separated the innermost courtyard and the separate area. V. 13 So the House was measured as one hundred cubits long which I compute thus: pr together with the ornamentation of the leaf of the door is six cubits , as such is the thickness of the wall on all sides. Add sv (20) + wx (6) + yz (40) + ze (2) + ef (20) + fx (6). And the sum will be one hundred cubits. Moreover, the separate area kψ and the building with its walls kh were one hundred cubits. V.14 And the width of the façade of the House tω and of the se‑ parate area towards the East tp+ ωq, that is, the entire width of the courtyard pq, was 100 cubits. V. 15, 16, And the length of the building as far as the façade of the separate area, to the back of the House lk, and the spaces of either side ls + kr, that is, the total width of the courtyard, sr, one hundred cubits. The Temple on the inside and the porches of the courtyards, the thresholds, and the windows and the corridors between the chambers on all sides, on three floors to the threshold of each one, were completely covered with wood, etc. [fol. 10] Chapter 42.1 Aer seeing and measuring what was in the double inner courtyard, the Angel led me along the passageway of the North gate mG to the outer courtyard Rl, and he led me to the room l which faced the separate area hqmk and faced the buil‑ ding whkg which looked to the North.

86

The Temple of Solomon

2 Ante faciem ejus longitudo λω erat centum cubitorum, ostio Boream spectante, et latitudo yz erat cubitorum quinquaginta. Ita in Hebr. 3 E regione viginti cubitorum whkg quae erat in atrio interiore et e regione pavimenti quod erat in atrio exteriore, erat porticus pc contra porticum lw in triplici serie. Ita Hebr. Latinus pessime vertit porticus juncta porticui triplici. 4 Et ante exedras deambulatio ln, cujus latitudo lp decem cubitorum erat, iter seu longitudo lw centum cubitorum. Et exedrarum illarum quae per totam hanc longitudinem disponebantur ostia spectabant Aquilonem. 5 Et exedrae superiores angustiores erant secundum latitudinem: eo quod porticus sursum apertae seu ambulacra (ad latera superiorum exedrarum facta) auferebant [Hebr. exedebant] de iis, de infimis inquam et de mediis. 6 Namque triplici ordine constructa erant et non habebant columnas sicut columnae cubiculorum illorum triginta in Atrio exteriore. Quapropter ob ambulacra duo lateralia sursum aperta quae de media et de suprema exedrarum serie undique desumebantur, necesse erat supremam exedrarum seriem curtari et arctiorem fieri quam infima et media a fundo. 7 Et muro ST qui erat extrinsecus contra exedras, in via Atrii exterioris, ante faciem exedrarum, longitudo erat quinquaginta cubitorum. 8 Eo quod longitudo exedrarum Zrcp quae erant juxta Atrium exterius erat quinquaginta cubitorum et ecce ante faciem Templi conjunctim erant cubiti centum ZT. 9 Et de loco harum exedrarum erat introitus lp ab Oriente ingredientium in eas de Atrio exteriore, 10 in crassitie muri Atrii orientem versus. Et austrum versus [ad Nortem] e regione loci separati et e regione aedificii exedrae erant. 11, 12 Per omnes similes exedris ad boream. 12, 13, 14 Et dixit mihi: Exedrae boreales et australes e regione loci separati sanctae sunt sanctae in quibus vescuntur sacerdotes et

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

86

2 In front of the façade of this building the longitude λω was one hundred cubits, at the gate which faced North, and the width yz was fiy cubits. Thus is the Hebrew text. 3 Facing the twenty cubits whkg, in the inner courtyard, and fa‑ cing the pavement which was in the outer courtyard, there was a portico pc facing another portico lw on three floors. It is described thus in the Hebrew text. The Latin translator translated very badly: Portico next to a triple portico. 4 And in front of the rooms was the corridor ln, whose width lp was ten cubits; its distance or length lw was one hundred cubits. And the entrances to those rooms which were situated along all this length faced North. 5 And the upper rooms were narrower depending on the width: because the open porticos in the upper part or the passageways (made to the sides of the highest rooms) took [space] away (in the Hebrew text they stuck out) from these, from the lower ones and even from the ones in the middle. 6 In fact, they were built on three floors and they had no columns like those in those thirty rooms in the outer courtyard. For this rea‑ son, due to the open lateral passageways upstairs which had been taken from all sides of the middle and upper floors of the rooms, it was necessary that the upper floor of the rooms be cut and made na‑ rrower than the lowest floor and the middle floor from the ground. 7 And the length of the wall ST which was on the outside next to the rooms, in the direction of the outer courtyard, in front of the fa‑ çade of the rooms, was fiy cubits. 8 For this reason the length of the rooms Zrcp which were next to the outer courtyard was fiy cubits, and there, just in front of the façade of the Temple, was in total one hundred cubits ZT. 9 And in relation to the location of these rooms, the entrance lp was to the East side when entering them from the outer courtyard, 10 in the width of the wall of the courtyard which faces East. And looking to the South [to the Notus], facing the separate area and fa‑ cing the building, were the rooms. 11,12 On all sides similar to the rooms of the boreal side. 12, 13, 14 And he said “The boreal rooms and the austral rooms facing the separate place are holy, holy those where the Priests eat

87

The Temple of Solomon

completo ministerio vestes deponent antequam exeunt in atrium exterius ad populum. 15 Et ubi Angelus mensus est domum intrinsecus eduxit me per portam orientalem Atrii exterioris A et ambitus muri exteriores latera quatuor mensuravit, singula ut MV quingentorum cubitorum. Hoc muro determinabatur sanctuarium ad loco profano. Cap. 46, 19 etc. Postea quam videram gloriam domini eduxit me in locum N ubi sacerdotes sacrificia coquunt, et in WXYZ atria quatuor in angulis atrii extimi ubi coquuntur sacrificia populi. Haec atriola Ezekiel non prius viderat, adeoque a cubiculis quinque et quinque in pavimento inferiore hinc inde in angulo Ρ concurrentibus occultabantur ne fumus in Atriis duobus videretur. Igitur cubiculi illi una cum porticibus occupabant totam pavimenti inferioris latitudinem. Sed totam ejus longitudinem usque ad portas non occupabant eo quod Angelus ibi latitudinem muri externi dimensus est, et praeterea portae arcubus lateralibus perviae sunt. Quoddam autem sit intervallum cubiculorum ex utraque parte portae cujusque non dicitur. Relinquitur id ex optima aedificiorum symmetria determinandum. Et quantum sentio symmetria optima erit si intervallum illud respondeat latitudini atrii inferioris. Sit igitur intervallum illud hk centum cubitorum Rh 150 cub. Ho regio cubiculorum Ro regio porticuum ternarum ante triplicem seriem cubiculorum.

[fol. 11] Ezek. 40. V. 14,16. Et jam Angelus redeundo fecit frontes ad interiora portae per spatium sexaginta cubitorum usque ad Atrii frontem OP in circuitu portae dimensum, id est pergendo non secundum lineam rectam sed per ambitus et flexuras portae BCDJKLMNO. Est utique BC (6) + CD (3 ½) + DJ (28) + JK (3 ½) + JK (6) + LM (3 ½) + MN (8) + NO (1 ½) = 60. Ib. Vers. 44 Heb. et Versio latina valde corruptae sunt. Ezekiel jam ducitur in Atrium interius et ubi ducitur de loco in locum solet id

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

87

and, once their ministry is finished, they leave their vestments before going out to the outer courtyard of the Temple, to the place of the people.” 15 And when the Angel measured the House on the inside, he led me through the east gate of the outer courtyard A and he measured the four outer sides of the perimeter of the wall, each one of them, as MV, of five hundred cubits. By this wall the Sanctuary was sepa‑ rated from the profane place. Chapter 46: 19 etc. Aer I had seen the glory of the Lord, he led me to the place N, where the Priests cook the sacrifices and towards the four courtyards WXYZ in the corners of the furthest‑lying courtyard, where the sacrifices of the people were cooked. Ezekiel had not seen these lile courtyards before, because they were hidden by five and five rooms which joined at the angle P, of either side of the lower floor, so that the smoke would not be seen in the two courtyards. Thus, those rooms, together with the porticos, occupied the entire width of the lower floor. But they did not occupy all its length to the gates because the Angel there measured the width of the outer wall and, moreover, the gates are accessible by lateral archways. But we are not told what the distance between the rooms on either part of each gate is. This is le to be determined by the optimum symmetry of the buildings. And far as I know, the symmetry would be optimum if that space respon‑ ded to the width of the lower courtyard. Let us suppose, thus, that this space hk is one hundred cubits, Rh one hundred and fiy cubits, Ho the area of the rooms, Ro the area of the three porticos in front of the triple floor of rooms.

[fol. 11] Ezekiel 40 V. 14‑16 And then the Angel, when he came back, measured the facades as far as the inside of the gate through a space of sixty cubits to the façade of the courtyard OP measured in the frame of the gate, that is, advancing, not in a straight line, but rather through the frame and the inflections of the gate BCDJKLMNO. In total there are BC (6) + CD (3 ½) + DJ (28) + JK (3 ½) + KL (6) + LM (3 ½) + MN (8) + NO (1 ½) = 60. Ibidem Verse 44 The Hebrew text and the Latin version are espe‑ cially corrupt. Ezekiel is led then to the innermost courtyard, and

88

The Temple of Solomon

exprimere. Lege ergo cum Septuaginta: Et eduxit me in Atrium interius et ecce, duae exedrae in Atrio interiore una (f) a tergo (vel ad latus) januae Borealis respiciens ad Austrum, altera a tergo januae australis respiciens ad Boream. Ut Ezekiel ubi primum venit in Atrium exterius expressit cubicula in eo conspecta, sic etiam facit in hoc Atrio interiore. Exedra prior f sacerdotibus destinatur qui excubant in custodiam posterior Sacerdotibus qui excubant in ministerium Altaris. Quae de cantoribus et janua orientali in hebraeo jam leguntur non occurrunt in Septuaginta et sensum valde perturbant. Certe Levitae in Atrio Sacerdotum cubiculos non habent: multo minus in loco nobiliore quam sacerdotibus conceditur. Ezek. 41, 6. Et gazophylacia lateralia, laterale supra laterale, erant triginta ter dupliciter. Ita Septuaginta optime. Id est erant triginta ter juxta Templum et alia triginta ter ex adverso laterale contra laterale: nempe triginta infima, triginta media et triginta suprema. In Hebraeo sic est. Et lateralia, laterale supra laterale erant tria, et triginta Myimf(jpa (sic enim vox punctanda est) duabus vicibus. Id est lateralia laterale contra laterale secundum altitudinem tria erant secundum longitudinem triginta idque duabus vicibus, hinc triginta et illinc triginta congruenter versioni Septuaginta. Vide Ezek. 41, 16 et 1 Reg. 6, 6 de tribus ordinibus et Joseph. Antiq. l. 8. c. 3 de 30. Vers. 8 Et vidi ab altitudine domus undique (i.e. per ejus tres ordines cellarum) fundamenta cellarum lateralium calami sex cubitorum. Septuaginta pro fundamento habent dia/shma. Quia cellae superiores, latiores erant sed non longiores quam inferiores ideo ponitur hic mensura intervallum cellarum longitudinum per totam Domus altitudinem. V. 9 Latine sic et erat interior Domus in lateribus Domus. Sed illa domus interior non legitur in Heb. Et Septuaginta legunt: Et spatium relictum erat inter lateralia domus. Id est via in medio lateralium hinc inde. Illud spatium relictum et latinus pessime vertit interior

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

88

when he is taken from one place to another he normally says so. Read then with Septuagint: And he led me to the inner courtyard and here in the inner courtyard there were two rooms, one f to the back (or the side) of the boreal door looking to the Auster, the other to the back of the austral door looking to the Boreas. As Ezekiel, when he came to the outer courtyard spoke of the rooms which he saw there, he also did so in this inner courtyard. The first room f was for the Priests who stayed awake to keep guard, the second for the Priests who were res‑ ponsible for the ministry of the Altar. The words on the choirs and the east door can already be read in the Hebrew text, they do not appear in Septuagint and they change the meaning a lot. Doubtlessly the Levites did not have rooms in the courtyard of the Priests, even less so in the most noble place which is conceded to the Priests. Ezekiel 41: 6 And the lateral chambers, which were superimposed, were three times thirty doubly distributed. This is how it is very correctly translated by Septuagint. That is, there were three times thirty next to the Temple and another three times thirty on the opposite side, superimposed, that is, thirty lower, thirty middle and thirty upper ones. In the Hebrew text it is said as follows: And the laterals, which were superimposed, were three, and thirty Myimf(jpa (thus we must punc‑ tuate this word) twice. That is, the laterals, superimposed on each other, were three, along the length there were thirty, and this twice, the thirty on one side and other consistencies with the Septuagint ver‑ sion. See Ezekiel 41: 16 and Kings 6: 6 on the three floors and Jose‑ phus Antiq. l. 8. c. 3 on the thirty . Verse 8 And I saw up until the height of the House on all sides (that is, from the three floors of its rooms) the foundations of the la‑ teral rooms, which was one measuring rod of six cubits. Septuagint, instead of foundations, says dia/shma. As the upper rooms were wider but not longer than the lower ones, for this reason the space of the length of the rooms along the whole height of the House is given here as a measurement. V. 9 In Latin it is said: And there was an interior space of the House in the laterals of the House. But that interior of the House does not appear in the Hebrew text. And Septuagint reads: And the remaining space was between the laterals of the House. That is, the space in the middle of the laterals of

The Temple of Solomon

89

Domus, in Hebraeo dicitur t@ybe xn@fmu sed xnm significat non interius sed liberum et vacuum, locum aedificii non occupatum, aream interjectam; et mox versu 11 exponitur de area quam ostia cellarum hinc inde respiciebant quaeque dicitur cubitos quinque lata undique in circuitu et quod proxime in Hebraeo jam legitur tyb Domus, Septuaginta vertebant ἀvαμέσov adeoque legebant Nyb. Lege ergo Nyb cum Septuaginta et sensus perspicuus erit. Sic enim vertetur verbatim. Et quod vacuum [erat] inter lateralia quae juxta domum. Id est quod restabat de aedificiis erat platea inter cellas laterales quae sitae erant ad partes parietis domum versus. Vel ut Septuaginta breviter vertunt: Spatium relictum erat inter lateralia domus. V. 10 Et inter exedras latitudo cubitorum viginti circa domum undique. Per exedras hic non intelligit exedras Sacerdotum (illae nec circa domum undique sitae erant, neque hactenus speculatae nedum nominatae fuerant) sed cellas laterales. Et mensura haec non est latitudo areae interjectae (illa erat cubitorum tantum quinque V. 12) sed latitudo cellarum inclusive, latitudo spatii totius extra templum quam cellae occupabant. Unde postea exedras Sacerdotum describens dicit eas esse hinc e regione viginti quae in Atrio interiore et inde e regione pavimenti quod in atrio exteriore. Non dicit e regione pavimenti quod in atrio interiore sed e regione viginti, designans non plateam inter cellas sed totam cellarum structuram viginti cubitos latam, quasi dixisset, e regione cellarum. Ubi igitur dicit inter exedras latitudinem esse cubitorum viginti intellige illud inter inclusive, perinde ut Portae latitudo in 40, 13 a pariete cubiculi ad parietem cubiculi mensurati dicitur. Designat enim Nyb non intervalli terminos sed9 situm mensura et a Septuaginta apte redditur ἀvαμέσov. Per medium exedrarum, transversim, vel secundum lineam quae tendit inter exedras mensuravit cubitos viginti.

9

In the manuscript the word sed appears twice, by mistake.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

89

either side. That remaining space is also translated appallingly by the Latin version as interior of the House; in Hebrew it is said t@ybe xn@m f but xnm does not mean interior but rather free and empty, a place not occu‑ pied by buildings, an intermediate area; and moreover, in verse 11 the space to which the entrances of the rooms of either side looked is men‑ tioned, which, it is said, was five cubits wide all along the perimeter, and what immediately aer is read in Hebrew tyb House, Septuagint translated it as ἀvαμέσov and thus they read Nyb. Read thus Nyb with Septuagint and the meaning will be clear. This is how it is translated li‑ terally: And the empty space which remained between the laterals which were adjoining the House. That is, what remained from the buildings was a yard between the lateral rooms which were situated next to the parts of the wall looking at the House. Or, as Septuagint translates, more briefly: A space remained between the laterals of the House. V. 10 And between the rooms that were around the House on all sides the width was twenty cubits. By rooms here do not understand the Priests rooms (those were not situated around the house on all sides and until now they had not yet even been seen neither named), but rather the la‑ teral rooms. And this measurement is not the width of the intermediate space (that one was only fieen cubits V. 12), but rather the width of the rooms inclusive, the width of the entire space outside the Temple occu‑ pied by the rooms. For this reason, when describing the Priests’ rooms later, he says that these were, on one side, facing the twenty [cubits] in the inner courtyard and, on the other side, facing the pavement which was in the outer courtyard. It does not say facing the pavement which is in the inner courtyard, but rather facing the twenty, designating not the yard between the rooms but rather all the structure of the rooms with a width of twenty cubits, as if he had said facing the rooms. So, thus, where he says that the width between the rooms was twenty cubits, unders‑ tands that between inclusively, similar to when he spoke of the width of the door in 40: 13 from the wall of the room to the wall of the mea‑ sured room. Thus he designates Nyb not the limits of the intermediate space, but rather the space situated in the measurement and which Sep‑ tuagint correctly translates as ἀvαμέσov. Through the middle of the rooms, transversely or according to the line which goes between the rooms, he measured twenty cubits.

The Temple of Solomon

90

V. 15 Myqiyt@i) Hic dicuntur Ambulacra krqh et lp et postea Myqiyt@i) dicuntur etiam ambulacra tria seu porticus undique inter tres ordines cellarum lateralium (vers. 16) ut et ambulacra ad latera exedrae sacerdotalium (42, 3. 5) et quantum sentio generaliter significat porticum vel ambulacrum sive tectum sive desuper apertum. Cap. 42, 3 Latinus quem Villalpandus sequitur vertit porticus juncta porticui triplici. Hebraeus habet porticus contra porticum in triplo. Septuaginta congruenter a)ntipro/swpoi stoai\ trissai//. V. 10 Suspicor Mydqh Krd ad Orientem pro Mwrdh Krd ad Austrum vitio librarii scriptum esse. Nam Septuaginta hic Austrum habent et10

[fol. 10]11 Ezek. 40, 14. Et jam Angelus redeundo fecit frontes (sedilibus forsan interjectis) ad interiora portae per spatium sexaginta cubitorum usque ad Atrii frontem OP in circuitu portae, id est pergendo non secundum rectam sed per ambitus et flexuras portae intrinsecus quas jam ante dimensus fuerat. Id est in circuitu CD (3 ½) + DE + ER + dF + FG + Ge + fH + HJ (42) + JK + LM (7) + MN (8) + NO (1 ½) = 62: e quibus aufer latitudinem trium ostiorum (2) et restabunt 60 cubiti. BC, KL et OP relicta sunt plane ut Architecturae ratio postulat. Ezek. 42, 4 via cubiti unius in Hebr. At Septuaginta vertunt via cubitorum centum. Legebant ergo h)m centum ubi jam legitur tx) unus. Et recte. Nam Angelus hic mensurat ambulationis12 latitudinem cubitorum decem et viam ejus seu iter id est longitudinem viae ejus cubitorum centum. Ponit enim Krd iter Ambulacri pro longitudine ejus.

10

The text is interrupted here (cf. infra). This text, corresponding with fol. 10, appears in a reverse position. We edit it here because it seems to us that it has been added by the author after finishing writing fol. 11 in order to expand on the information offered on fol. 10 (cf. “Critical and Philological aspects”, p. XLVIII and followings). 12 In the manuscript the word ambultionis appears by mistake. 11

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

90

V. 15 Myqiyt@) i Here it is said of the corridors krqh and lp, and aer Myqiyt@) i is also said of three corridors or porticos on all sides between the three floors of the lateral rooms (verse 16) and also of the corridors next to the sides of the Priests’ room (42: 3‑5) and, for what I unders‑ tand, it generally means portico or covered corridor or open above. Chapter 42: 3 The Latin version followed by Villalpando, transla‑ tes portico joined to a triple portico. The Hebrew text has portico against a portico three times. Septuagint coherently translates a)ntipro/swpoi stoai\ trissai//. V. 10 I suspect that Mydqh Krd towards the East had been wrien instead of Mwrdh Krd towards the South due to a mistake by the scribe. As Septuagint also has South6 here.

[fol. 10]7 Ezekiel 40: 14. And then the Angel, when he came back, me‑ asured the façades (maybe with the seats in between) until the inside of the gate through a space of sixty cubits until the façade of the court‑ yard OP in the frame of the gate, that is, advancing not according to a straight line, but rather through the frame and the inflections of the gate from the inside which he had already measured. That is, in the perimeter CD (3 ½) + DE + ER + dF + FG + Ge + fH + HJ (42) + JK + LM (7) + MN (8) + NO (1 ½) = 62, from which take away the width of the three entrances (2) and sixty cubits will remain. BC, KL and OP are ex‑ cluded exactly as the proportion of the architecture demands. Ezekiel 42: 4. Space of one cubit in the Hebrew text, but Septuagint translates space of one hundred cubits. They thus read h)m one hundred where one could already read tx) one. And correctly, as the Angel here measured the width of the corridor as ten cubits and the trajec‑ tory of the corridor or the space, that is, the length of the trajectory of the corridor as one hundred cubits. Thus he wrote Krd space of the corridor instead of the length of the corridor.

6

The text is interrupted here (cf. infra). This text, corresponding with page 10, appears in a reverse position. We edit it here because it seems to us that it has been added by the author after finishing writing page 11 (cf. “Critical and Philological aspects”, p. XLVIII and followings). 7

The Temple of Solomon

91

[fol. 12]13

[fol. 13] Commentarium a. Dimensiones altaris Ezekiel14 sic expressit. In sinu ejus erat cubitus ab, et cubitus in latitudine bd et terminus ejus, btco ad labium ejus in circuitu palmus unus. Et hic erat erectus altaris [terminus. Usus ejus ut in fusus sacrificiorum sanguis contineretur donec per exilia duo foramina descenderet in profundum ut explicant Talmudici]. Et de sinu terrae usque ad crepidinem inferiorem duo cubiti de et latitudo cubiti unius ef. Et a crepidine minore usque ad crepidinem majorem quatuor cubiti fg et latitudo cubiti unius gh. Ipse autem [Hebr. Mons Dei. i. e. summus] mons summus quatuor cubitorum hk et a cavitate focaria lq [Heb. Praedator Dei. id est maximus, ut Leo. Item locus ubi aliquid devoratur ut Praesepe. Hic significatur cavitas magna lmpq ubi sacrificia consumuntur.] usque sursum cornua quatuor et cavitas lq duodecim cubiti longitudinis in duodecim cubitos latitudinis quadratus in quatuor quadrantibus ejus. Et [cavitatis illius] crepido klqr quatuordecim cubiti longitudinis in quatuordecim cubitos latitudinis in quatuor quadrantibus ejus. Et corona n vel o in circuitu ejus dimidii cubiti et sinus ejus lm unius cubiti per circuitum. Hactenus Ezekiel. Unde colligitur longitudinem et latitudinem altaris in fundo az esse viginti cubitorum et altitudinem ym decem cubitorum ut in Templo Solomonis. De rictu lmpq aufer ambulacrum Sacerdotum per circuitum, cujus latitudinem mn Talmudici tradunt fuisse cubiti unius et manebit locus focarius no decem cubitos longus et latus, id est longitudine et latitudine duplus ejus quem Moses construxerat. Namque totum altare Mosaicum erat locus focarius intra ambulacrum sacerdotum constitutus adeoque spatio interiori no respondebat. Judaei sub Templo secundo usque ad tempora Alexandri Magni et ultra altare viginti cubitos longum et viginti latum altum vero decem cubitos construebant, ut illorum temporum scriptor

13 14

It contains the only word Commentary in the bottom right‑hand corner. Cf. Ezek. 43: 13‑17. In the manuscript a plan has been inserted here.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

91

[fol. 12]8

[fol. 13] Commentary a. The dimensions of the altar were expressed9 by Ezekiel in the fo‑ llowing way: its hearth was one cubit ab, and one cubit in width bd, and its limit btco to the edge, all around, was one palm. And this was the height of the altar [limit: it was used to contain the blood spilled by the sacri‑ fices until through small holes it descended to the end, as explained by the experts in the Talmud]. And from the hearth on the ground to the lower ledge was two cubits de and the width was one cubit ef. And from the smaller ledge to the larger ledge was four cubits fg and the width was one cubit gh. The highest Mountain itself [in Hebrew Mountain of God, that is highest] was four cubits hk and from the fire hearth lq [in Hebrew Hunter of God, that is, the biggest, like the lion. Also place where something is de‑ voured like trough. Here it means the big hearth lmpq where the sacri‑ fices are consumed] to the horns above was four cubits, and the hearth lq was twelve cubits long by twelve cubits wide forming a square on its four quadrants. And the ledge [of that hearth] klqr was fourteen cubits long by fourteen cubits wide on its four quadrants. And the rim all round n or o was half a cubit and its the depth lm was one cubit all round. Until here Ezekiel. From here we can deduce that the length and the width of the altar on the floor az was twenty cubits, and the height ym, ten cubits, as in the Temple of Solomon. From the hearth lmpq take away the passageway of the Priests all round, whose width mn, according to the experts in Talmud, had been one cubit, and we are le with the fire place no, ten cubits long and ten cubits wide, that is, a length and width of double what Moses had built, will remain. Thus, all Moses’ altar was the fire place, situated inside the passageway of the Priests, and thus it corres‑ ponded with the inner space no. The Jews, under the second Temple until the times of Alexander the Great and later, built an altar twenty cubits long and twenty cubits wide, but at a height of ten cubits, ac‑ cording to Hecataeus, a writer

8 9

It contains the only word Commentary in the bottom right‑hand corner. Cf. Ezek. 43: 13‑17. In the manuscript a plan has been inserted here.

92

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 14] Hecataeus (Apud Joseph. Contra Appion. l. 1) retulit: postea vero non intelligentes expressionem mathematicam ducendi longitudinem in latitudinem, perperam interpretati sunt verba Ezekielis, quasi longitudo et latitudo duodecim cubitorum, mensuranda esset a centro altaris. Atque ita justis dimensionibus addentes duodecim cubitos construxerunt altare 32 cubitos longum et latum in fundo. Aufer spurios illos 12 cubitos et eorum altare satis quadrabit cum descriptione nostra. Porro ipsos verba Ezekielis perperam interpretatos esse constat ex 48, 20 ubi viginti quinque millia in viginti quinque millia ducuntur ad designandum quadratum cujus singula latera non sunt quinquaginta millia ut oporteret secundum expositionem Judaeorum sed tantum viginti quinque millia. (Ezek. 45, 3. 5. 6 et 48, 9. 13. 15). Sic et sanctuarium quod longum et latum est cubitos quingentos dicitur quingenti in quingentos (Ezek. 45, 2). b Templum Solomonis una cum atriis suis nullibi satis descriptum habetur praeterquam in visionibus Ezekielis quarum expositio perdifficili est: Verum templo illo destructo manserunt sepulta fundamentorum vestigia usque dum templum secundum aedificaretur, et iisdem fundamentis extructa aedificia se mutuo illustrare sperandum est. Videamus igitur quid lucis afferat visionibus Ezekielis contemplatio templi secundi. Aedificabatur templum utrumque in montis Sion jugo quodam dicto Moria. Et initio quidem ut author est Josephus (Bell. Jud. l. 6. c. 14) vix Templo atque areae sufficiebat jacens in summo planities, quod undique praeceps erat et declivis. Collem vero ad Orientem, et Austrum et Occidentem inmenso cingentes muro et cavitatem implentes inter murum et collem rupemque versus Aquilonem defodientes tantum olim assumpserant spatium quantum sanctuarii totius quadratus ambitus incluserat. Regium illud Solomonis opus Josephus qui locum viderat describit aliquoties affirmans murum hunc ubique (id est ducentos cubitos sacros) trecentos circiter cubitos et in orientali quidem latere (id est 266 sacros) quadringentos cubitos

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

92

[fol. 14] of those times (in Josephus, Contra Appion. l.1); but aerwards, as they did not understand the mathematical expression of taking the length to the width,10 the words of Ezekiel were interpreted mistakenly as if the length and the width of twelve cubits had to be measured from the centre of the altar. And so, adding twelve cubits to the correct dimensions, they built an altar of thirty‑two cubits long and wide at its base. Take away those twelve spurious cubits and their altar will fit in quite well with our description. Again we can see that they themselves had misin‑ terpreted the words of Ezekiel (48: 20) where there are twenty five thou‑ sand by twenty five thousand to mark a square whose sides are not fiy thousand each, as was agreed on according to the statement of the Jews, but rather only twenty five thousand (Ezek. 45: 3. 5. 6 and 48: 9. 13. 15). Likewise it is said that the sanctuary, whose length and width were five hundred cubits, was five hundred by five hundred (Ezek. 45: 2). b. The Temple of Solomon together with its courtyards has not been sufficiently described anywhere other than in the visions of Ezekiel, whose narration is extremely difficult. Certainly, that Tem‑ ple having been destroyed, the tracks of its foundations were buried until the second Temple was built, and we may hope that the buil‑ dings erected on the same foundations clarify each other mutually. Let us see then what light is contributed by the contemplation of the second Temple in the visions of Ezekiel. Both Temples were built on an elevation of Mount Sion called Moria. And doubtlessly at the beginning, as Josephus (Bel. Jud. l. 6. c. 14) said, the plane that was on the summit was scarcely sufficient for the Temple and for a free space, because on all sides there was a slope and a fall. But by surrounding all the hill to the East, the South and the West with an immense wall, filling the hollow which lay between the wall and the hill, and digging into the rock towards the North, they had gained, since ancient times, a space as big as that which spanned the squared perimeter of all the sanctuary. That magnificent work by Solomon is described by Josephus, who had seen the place, stating so‑ metimes that this wall was all round approximately three hundred cu‑ bits (that is, two hundred sacred cubits), but on the east side four hundred cubits high (that is, two hundred and sixty sacred cubits). 10 This refers to the expression duodecim cubiti longitudinis in duodecim cubitos latitudinis and which we have translated: twelve cubits long by twelve cubits wide.

93

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 15] altum. Intelligit autem hic et in sequentibus cubitos romanos vel potius quadripalmares Romanis proximos ut posthac monstrabitur (Misn. de Sanhedrin cap. 11). Atque huic muro, inquiunt Talmudici, ab interiori parte scamna undique adhaerebant, quibus sedere populus posset, imbrice superius pluvias atque solis vim arcendi causa aedificata. Scamna vero cingebant deambulatorium quinquaginta cubitos latum in circuitu Templi. (Joseph. Antiq. l. 15. c. 14) Interius dein, pergit Josephus, ipsum verticem ambit alius murus lapideus, cujus orientale latus quam longum est duplicem habet porticum spectantem januam templi siti e regione in meditullio. Eam porticum priores reges extruxerant. Hunc autem ambitum et quicquid interius est Philo (lib. 2 De Monarchia) qui etiam locum viderat sic breviter describit. Templi extimus ambitus longe lateque patens munitur quatuor elegantissimae structurae porticibus quarum singulae duplici constant ordine, materie marmoribus artificumque ingenioso labore architectorumque cura ornatissimae: sed (Ita gr.) interiores ambitus submissiores sunt et in apparatu plus austeritatis prae se ferunt. In medio templum ipsum nullis verbis enarrabile, quantum licet ex his quae foris spectantur conjecturam facere. Nam intima nemini videre fas est praeterquam soli Sacerdotum principi et id ei quoque uno die duntaxat anniversario permiitur. Cum Philone consentit Josephus afirmans porticus omnes illius exterioris ambitus tam (Antiq. l. 8 c. 2) in templo Solomonis quam (Bell. Jud. l. 6. c. 14) in templo secundo duplices fuisse; praeterquam quod Herodes in latere australi loco duplicis aedificavit triplicem. In ejus (Antiq. l. 15 c. 14) inquit, porticibus stabant paribus intervallis quatuor columnarum ordines quorum quartus [qui extimus erat] intertextum habebat lapideum parietem. Crassitudo autem cujusque columnae quantum possent tres homines consertis inter se complecti brachiis: longitudo viginti septem pedum, subjecta spira duplici. Numerus universorum fuit centum et sexaginta duo capitellis sculptis opere Corinthio pulchris usque ad miraculum.

[fol. 16] His quaternis [columnarum] ordinibus, pergit Josephus, fiunt per [tria] intervalla ternae porticus ita ut in utroque latere duae pariles triginta pedum latitudinis, plus quinquaginta altitudinis, stadii [Hebraici,

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

93

[fol. 15] But understand here and in the following, Roman cubits or rather of four handbreadths, near to the Romans, as will be shown aer this (Misn. de Sanhedrin cap. 11). And to this wall, according to the Tal‑ mud experts, there were, from the inner part and all around, benches aached where the people could sit down with a shelter built above to protect them from the rains and the strength of the sun. The benches were situated all along a gallery of fiy cubits wide all around the Temple (Josephus Antiq. l. 15 c. 14). Aerwards, further inside, continued Josephus, surrounding the same high part is another stone wall, whose east side has all along its length a double portico which looks towards the door of the Temple situated facing it in the middle part. This portico had been erected by the first kings. But this area and that which is further inside is des‑ cribed briefly by Philo (lib. 2 Mon.) who had also seen the place: The outermost area of the Temple which extends along the length and breadth is protected by four porticos of a most elegant structure, each one of which has two stories of marble, and it is very much embellished thanks to the genius of artists and the work of architects; but [so says the Greek] the inner parts are more modest and show more austerity in their appearance. In the middle was the Temple, impossible to describe with words, depending on what it is possible for one to imagine when seeing it from outside, because the innermost part cannot be seen by anybody, excepting only the prince of the Priests and even he may only see it one day a year. Josephus agrees with Philo stating that the porticos of that outer area, both in the Temple of Solomon (Antiq. l. 8 c. 2) and in the second Temple, (Bel. Jud. l. 6. c. 14) had been double, except what Herod built on the South side which was triple rather than double. In the porticos of this (Antiq. l. 15 c. 14) there were four rows of columns separated by equal spaces; the fourth [which was the outermost] had a wall of stone adjacent to it. The thickness of each column was as much as three men with outstretched could span joining their arms; the length was twenty‑seven feet with a double moulding underneath. The total number was one hundred and sixty‑two with some capitals sculpted in the Corinthian style of a beauty bordering on a miracle.

[fol. 16] With these four rows [of columns], continues Josephus, three porticos are formed along [three] intermediate spaces, so that at either side two identical porticos, thirty feet wide plus fiy high, with a longitude of one stadion

The Temple of Solomon

94

calamorum septuaginta] longitudine claudant inter se mediam, cujus latitudo sesquialtera altitudo vero duplicata, tanto superabat utrumque. Earum lacunaria lignea sculpturata figuris variis. Mediae vero convexitas altius surgebat excitato super epistylia pariete lapideo politissimo columnis insertis distincto, mirabili artificio commissuris oculos facientibus. Ita Josephus. Aufer jam porticum mediam et in reliquis duabus factis contiguis habebis descriptionem porticuum duplicium per circuitum atrii. Namque ideo Herodes singularem suam magnificentiam ostendit in media portica quod porticus anterior quae in atrio positis conspicua erat deberet caeteris per circuitum porticibus manere conformis. Duplicis autem porticus latitudinem internam Josephus (Bell. Jud. l. 6 c. 14) alibi ponit triginta cubitorum, id est viginti cubitorum sacrorum. Supra porticus constructas fuisse exedras15 concipiendum est quoniam ita factum fuit in atrio interiore (ut non videbimus) cujus tamen aedificia referente Philone, submissiora erant. In singulis atrii lateribus singulae erant portae praeterquam in latere occidentali ubi Josephus collocat portas quatuor. Numerum septenarium atestabant Judaei. Anguli vero diversae erant structurae a porticibus, et portis, ni fallor, respondebant in medio positis. Nam Josephus (Bell. Jud. l. 7 c. 19) de porticibus duabus boreali et occidentali verba faciens subjungit: ὧν ἡ συνάπτουσα γωνία τῆς Κεδρῶνος φάραγγος ὑπερεδόμητο, quarum angulus utramque conjungens aedificabatur supra vallem Cedron, unde profunda erat et horribilis ejus altitudo. Intelligit ergo Josephus per angulos atrii non nudos porticuum

[fol. 17] concursus sed aedificia quaedam in concursibus. Et hinc est quod ubi Romani sub Tito Imperatore incenderant porticum borealem et ignis ad usque hunc angulum progressus fuerat incendium cessavit et porticum orientalem minime corripuit, ut ibidem narrat Josephus. Scilicet anguli illi erant atriola quatuor (Ezek. 46, 22) quae cavitate et parietibus altis ignem facile sisterent. Unde et Joseph. (Bell. Jud. l. 6 c. 15) castri ab Asamonaeis Regibus conditi et ab Herode magnificentius aedificati dictique Antonia, angulus 15

In the manuscript exedra and exhedra are used indistinctly; we use exedra.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

94

[Hebrew, that is, seventy reeds] surrounded the central portico, whose width, being one and a half times and height being double, surpassed the height of either porch by far. The coffered ceilings of these porches were made of wood carved with varied figures. With respect to the vault of the central porch, it rose very high elevating on the architraves its finely polished wall of stone adorned with columns inlaid in the wall, its joints forming an art which was formidable to see. So says Josephus. Take away, thus, the central portico and, for the remaining two which are built next to it, you will have the description of the double porticos through the circuit of the courtyard. Likewise Herod shows his outstanding magnificence in the central portico be‑ cause the preceding portico, which was visible to those situated in the courtyard, should be in agreement with the other porticos on the peri‑ meter. Elsewhere (Bel. Jud. l. 6 c. 14), however, Josephus puts thirty cu‑ bits, that is twenty sacred cubits, as the internal width of the double portico. We must think (as we will not see it) that on the porticos rooms had been built, as this was how it was done in the inner courtyard, the buildings of which, however, as referred to by Philo, were lower. On each side of the courtyard there were respective gates, except on the western side where Josephus situates four gates. The Jews gave witness to seven. But the constructions of the corner were different to the porti‑ cos and corresponded, if I am not mistaken, to the gates situated in the middle. Thus Josephus (Bel. Jud. l. 7 c. 19), speaking about the northern and western porticos, adds: ὧν ἡ συνάπτουσα γωνία τῆς Κεδρῶνος φάραγγος ὑπερεδόμητο, the corner which joined either portico was built on the valley of the Cedron, where the height was immense and admirable. Jo‑ sephus, thus, understands, for the corners of the courtyard, not the mere confluences of the porches,

[fol. 17] but rather some buildings of the confluences. And from here it transpires that when the Romans, under the Emperor Titus, set fire to the north portico and the fire spread as far as this corner, the fire stopped and caused very lile damage to the eastern portico, as narrates Josephus in the same passage. That is, those corners were the four small courtyards (Ezek. 46: 22) which, due to their depth and high walls, resisted fire easily. Thus Josephus (Bel. Jud. l. 6 c. 15) also says that a corner of the fortress founded by the Hasmonean Kings, magnificently built by Herod and ca‑

95

The Temple of Solomon

unus stabat in angulo atrii urbem versus ita ut qua cum porticibus boreali et occidentali jungebatur haberet in utramque patentes descensus; ad Orientem stabat porticus quae dicebatur Solomonis (Joan. 10, 23). Unde Joseph. (Bell. Jud. l. 16 c. 14) hanc solam a Solomone conditam fuisse putabat. Et quoniam haec ante templum sita erat (Ezek. 46, 2. 3) ubi Judaei maxime adorabant, ideo frequentabatur a primis Christianis Deum colentibus (Act. 5, 12) (Joseph. Antiq. l. 15 c. 14 et l. 20 c. 8). Caeteros porticus Herodes et posteri ejus de novo aedificabant. Mansit hujus aedificium vetus usque ad excidium templi, adeoque caeteris quas Simeon Justus condiderat praestantior, tunc temporis nomen Solomonis merita est. (Joseph. Antiq. l. 15 c. 14) Regia dicebatur augustissima illa Herodis porticus australis, portaque ejus ab ornatu summo nomen pulchrae obtinuit. Nam porta pulchra illa erat per quam populus ingrediebatur in Templum (Act. 3, 2). Ingrediebantur autem omnes per portam australem et egrediebantur per borealem, demptis iis quibus aliquid laevi acciderat quique obviam euntes ingrediebantur per portam borealem et exibant per australem, uti scribunt Talmudici. Has porticus Joseph. habet pro fano vel sacrario primo. Totum autem, ait (Joseph. Bell. Jud. l. 6 c. 14)

[fol. 18] sub dio spatium variabatur, omnium quidem generum lapidibus stratum: qua vero ad secundum fanum ibatur cancellis septum saxeis ad tres cubitos altis nimiumque grato opere factis. Hoc septum tam austrino quam septentrionali latere patebat ternis aequidistantibus januis, ab Oriente vero una magna per quam intrarent casti cum uxoribus. [Accedebant autem gentes etiam usque ad septum illud] ubi aequis dispositae intervallis columnae stabant legem castimoniae praemonentes aliae graecis aliae latinis literis in locum sanctum transire alienigenas non debere. Sanctum enim vocabatur alterum fanum et quatuordecim gradibus ascendebatur a primo, quadratumque sursum erat et proprio muro circumdatum, cujus exterior celsitudo quamvis 40 cubitis [supra planum atrii magni] surgeret tamen gradibus [per totam longitudinem versus Austrum, Orientem et Boream] tegebatur, interior autem viginti

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

95

lled Antonia, was in the corner of the courtyard which looks towards the city so that, where it joined with north and west porticos, the way down to either portico was open; to the East was the portico called Solomon’s portico (Joan 10: 23). For this reason Josephus (Bel. Jud. l. 16 c. 14) thought that only this one had been founded by Solomon. And given that this one was situated in front of the Temple (Ezek. 46: 2. 3) where the Jews preferably carried out their worship, it was also frequented by the first Christians to worship God (Act. 5: 12) (Josephus, Antiq. l. 15 c. 14 and l. 20 c. 8). Herod and his descendents built the remaining porticos as new constructions. The ancient construction [Solomon’s portico] subsisted until the fall of the Temple, and it was so much more noteworthy than the others founded by Simeon the Just, that at this time it merited the name of Solomon (Josephus, Antiq. l. 15 c. 14). That very majestic south portico was called Regio, and its door obtained the name beautiful due to its wonderful ornamentation. Thus, the beautiful door was the same one through which the people entered the Temple (Act. 3: 2). But they all en‑ tered through the south door and le through the north door, except those to which anything sinister had happened and who, to combat it, entered through the north door and le through the south door, as is wrien by the experts in the Talmud. Josephus takes these porticos as the first sacred place or sacred area. But all the open air space, he says (Jo‑ sephus Bel. Jud. l. 6 c. 14),

[fol. 18] was very varied, paved with all sorts of stones; the place through which one went to the second sacred area was surrounded by stone walls up to three cubits high and very finely worked. This area opened both to the south side and to the north side via three equidistant gates, and from the East via a big gate through which the pure and their wives entered. [But the people also had access to this area] where at equal intervals were situated the columns which, with Greek and Latin writing, warned, as a law of purity, that foreigners could not enter the sacred place. As holy was called another sacred place, reached by fourteen steps, counting from the first one, and which was square in the upper part and surrounded by its own wall, the exterior height of which, although it was forty cubits [on the plan of the great courtyard], was, however, camouflaged by the steps [all along the South, the East and the North]; the interior height was

96

The Temple of Solomon

quinque cubitorum. Nam in loco ob gradus altiore constituta non tota interius cernebatur, colle obtecta. Post quatuordecim autem gradus spatium erat usque ad murum decem cubitis planum [et gradus quintodecimi vicem gerens]. Hinc rursum alii quinque gradus ad portas ducebant, quae quidem a septentrione et meridie erant octo, quaternae utrinque videlicet [quarum ternas orientaliores ternis in septo cancellato januis utrobique respondere concipe] duae autem erant ex Oriente necessario. Nam cum proprius [extrinsecus] ad hanc plagam locus mulieribus ad cultum destinatus muro [circumacto] discernebatur [praeter portam primam et principalem in latere sacrarii sursum quadrati sitam] secunda quoque porta opus erat. Inventa est ea e regione primae

[fol. 19] [extrinsecus inter illam et januam orientalem septi cancellati]. Et ex aliis plagis una erat meridiana porta et una septentrionalis, quibus [in spatium intermurale loco mulierum et sacrario sursum quadrato interjectum et inde] ad mulieres, introibatur. Per alias enim portas transire ad mulieres non licebat [quippe quae ducebant in loca sacerdotum quo nefas erat populum licenter ingredi]. Sed nec per portam suam [unicam] transgredi licebat murum [illum] disterminantem [pergendo ad mulieres]. Nam solus Rex aut Princeps per portam illam ingressus est, caeteri postquam per januam orientalem septi cancellati introierunt deflectunt inde ad latera [eundo ad portam aquilonis et portam austri]. Patebat enim locus ille pariter indigenis et hospitibus populis [tam viris quam feminis] religionis causa venientibus. Occidua vero pars [sacrarii a tergo templi] nullam portam habebat sed perpetuus ibi murus erat extructus. Inter portas autem [ad latera sacrarii superioris] porticus a muro introrsum versae ante Gazophylacia [inter ipsas et murum sita] magnis et pulcherrimis columnis sustinebantur. Erant autem [non duplices ut inferiores illae in atrio exteriore sed] simplices et praeter magnitudinem nulla re ab [illis] inferioribus aberant. Portarum autem novem quidem [in sacrario hocce superiore sitae] auro et argento undique tectae erant itemque postes et

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

96

twenty‑five cubits. Thus, although it reached a higher place because of the steps, it could not all be distinguished from the inside, covered by the hill. Aer the fourteenth step there was a flat space, until the wall, of ten cubits [and which was like the fieenth step]. From here, a further five steps led to the gates which from the North and midday numbered eight, four on each side [think that the three easternmost of these gates correspon‑ ded to the three gates which were in the fenced areas on either side]; two were in the East, because it was necessary. In effect, when a separate space [the outside one] in this area, meant for the women for their wors‑ hip, was separated by a wall [around] a second gate also became necessary [as well as the first main gate situated above on the side of the square sacred place]. This was in front of the first one

[fol. 19] [in the outer part, between that and the eastern gate of the fenced area]. And from the other places, one was the southern gate and the other the northern gate, through which one entered [going by the space bet‑ ween the walls situated between the women’s place and square sacred area above, and from there] until the place where the women were. As women were not allowed go through other gates [because these gates led to the Priests’ place where the people were not allowed to enter freely]. But not even through their own [only] gate was it licit for them to pass the wall which stood in their way [when advancing towards where the women were] As only the King or the Prince entered through that gate, the rest, having entered by the eastern entrance of the fenced area, deviated from there to the side [going towards the North and the South gates]. As that place was open both to the indigenous peoples and to visitors [both men and women] who came for religious reasons. The western part [of the sacred area from the back part of the Temple] had no gate but a continuous wall had been built there. But between the gates [at the sides of the upper sacred area] some porticos built from the wall inwards, in front of the living quarters [which were situated between the porticos and the wall], were held by very beautiful big columns. They were [not double like the ones below in the inner courtyard but rather] single and, if it were not for their magnitude, nothing would differentiate them from those below. Nine of the gates [situated precisely in this upper sacred area] were completely covered in gold and

97

The Temple of Solomon

superliminaria, decima vero extra sacrarium [id est unica illa extrinsecus in muro atrii faeminarum] aere Corinthio quae multum argento stratas et inauratas honore superabat. Et binae quidem

[fol. 20] fores singulis januis erant tricenis cubitis altae et quinisdenis etiam latae. Post introitum vero interius dilatatae [id est, a muro in quo erat introitus versus interiora productae,] tricenis utrinque cubitis exedras habebant [supra porticus et gazophylacia extructas:] exemplo quidem turrium longas et latas supra vero quam quadraginta cubitis celsas. Singulas autem [inter (Joseph. Bell. Jud. lib. 7 c. 13) binas portas extructas] binae columnae duodenum cubitorum ambitu sustinebant [praeter binas semicolumnas ad latera portarum hinc inde quae una cum columnis integris terna sub singulis exedris efficiebant intercolumnia]. Et aliarum quidem [novem] portarum magnitudo par fuit. Quae vero supra Corinthiam portam [id est in loco editiore] ab atrio mulierum, ex Oriente aperiebatur e regione portae templi, [duarum orientalium prima caeteris] multo major erat. Quinquaginta enim cubitis surgens, quadraginta cubitorum fores habebat, ornatumque magnificentiorem quoniam crasiori argento atque auro vestiebatur: quod quidem [aurum et argentum] novem portis infuderat Tiberii pater Alexander. Gradus autem quindecim [(Ita Talm.) semicirculares] ad majorem [illam] portam a muro mulieres segregante ducebant: namque gradibus illis quinque [(Ita Talm.) semicubitalibus,] qui ad alias [octo] portas ducebant erant breviores. Ipsum vero templum in medio positum [non in centro sed in media linea] sacrosanctum dictum, duodecim gradibus ascendebatur. Et a fronte quidem altitudo ejus et latitudo centenos cubitos habebat, pone autem (Ezra 6, 3) quadraginta cubitis angustius erat. Anterius enim quasi humeri utrinque vicenorum cubitorum exibant [vestibulo eousque dilatato]. ~Cum autem templum intus [ad sexaginta

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

97

silver, and likewise the jambs and the lintels, but the tenth outside the sacred area [that is, the only one which was outside in the wall of the women’s courtyard], of Corinthian bronze, was the one which stood out amongst those which were covered in a lot of silver and those garnished in gold. And the two

[fol. 20] leaves of each gate were each thirty cubits high and fieen wide. And aer the entrance, extending inwards [that is, advancing from the wall where the entrance to the interior is], there were rooms by way of towers, on either side, thirty cubits long and wide each, but more than forty cubits high [built on the porticos and the living quarters]. Each one of these [those built inside the two gates (Josephus Bel. Jud. lib. 7 c. 13)] was held by two columns of twelve cubits in circumference [as well as two bays on each side of the gates which, together with the complete co‑ lumns, formed three bays under each one of the rooms]. And the size of the other [nine] gates was the same. But that which opened on the Co‑ rinthian gate [that is, in the highest place], at the side of the women’s courtyard, from the East, facing the gate of the Temple [the first between the two of the East] was much bigger. It was fiy cubits high with leaves of forty cubits and its decoration was richer as it was covered with more silver and gold. This panelling [of gold and silver] of the nine gates had been provided by Alexander, the father of Tiberius. Fieen [semicircular, according to the experts in Talmud] steps led to the great gate from the wall which separated the women: they were, thus, smaller than those five steps [of half a cubit, according to the experts in Talmud] which led to the other eight gates. And to the Temple situated in the middle [not in the centre but rather on the middle line], called sacrosanct, one arrived by going up twelve steps. The height and the width of this [Temple] in the fa‑ çade was one hundred cubits each, but behind [Ezra 6: 3] it was forty cu‑ bits narrower. To the front emerged a sort of shoulders11 of twenty cubits on either side [to this point the vestibule was extended]. ~ But, although the Temple was divided inside [to a height of sixty cubits]

11 For this reason the Mishnah compares the building in its totality with a lion (Middoth 4: 7).

The Temple of Solomon

98

[fol. 21] cubitorum altitudinem] contignatione intersectum esset [caenaculo superius constructo] sola prima aedes [vestibulum intellige] patebat in altitudinem perpetuam perque nonaginta cubitos tollebatur cum longa [interius] quadraginta cubitorum esset ac viginti transversa. ~Circa latera vero inferioris templi [ad usque contignationem surgentis] multi erant cubiculi pervii triplici tabulato sibi mutuo impositi et ad utrumque [templi] latus ad eos introitus a porta [templi (Ita Talmudici) in medio postium ejus inter januas templi ad utrumque muri latus suspensas] patebant. Superior autem pars eosdem cubiculos non habebat, tantoque erat angustior celsior autem quadraginta cubitis nec ita ut inferior ambitiosa. Colligitur enim centum cubitorum celsitudo universa additis illis qui in solo erant sexaginta cubitis. ~Ara vero ante templum quindecim cubitis alta lata vero et longa cubitis quinquaginta, quadrataque stans, veluti cornutis angulis eminebat, et a meridie ascensus in eam eminenter arduus resupinabatur. Sine ferro autem constructa erat, nec unquam eam ferrum tetigerat. Templum autem aramque cingebat ex pulcherrimo saxo lorica gratissima usque ad cubitum surgens quae populum [orientem versus] a Sacerdotibus segregabat: Gonorrhaeos hoc est semina fluentes itemque leprosos tota civitas arcebat et faeminis menstrua solventibus clausa erat, praedictum autem limitem ne puris quidem mulieribus transgredi permiebatur. Viri autem, qui non per omnia casti fuissent ab interiori atrio et qui puri essent a Sacerdotibus [interjecta illa lorica] prohibebantur. Hactenus Joseph. qui alibi haec ultima sic repetit (Contra Appion. l. 6).

[fol. 22] Quatuor porticus [seu atria porticibus ornata] habuit Templum in circuitu et harum singula propriam secundum legem habuere custodiam. In exteriorem itaque ingredi licentia fuit omnibus etiam alienis [inde atrium gentium dictum] mulieres tantummodo menstruatae transire prohibebantur. In secundam vero porticum [sic nominat podium quod porticus in speciem construebatur] cuncti Judaei ingrediebantur eorumque conjuges cum essent ab omni pollutione mundae. In tertiam masculi Judaeorum mundi existentes atque purificati. In quartam autem Sacerdotes stolis induti sacerdotalibus. In Aditum16 vero soli principes Sacerdotum. 16

In the manuscript we read Aditum, possibly meaning Adytum?

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

98

[fol. 21] into floors [a cenacle having been built in the upper part] only the first room [understand the vestibule] could be seen to the total of its height and it rose to ninety cubits and an [interior] length of forty cubits and twenty on a transversal line. ~But near to the sides of the lower part of the Temple [which rose to the upper floor] there were many rooms, built on three floors, which opened out onto each other, and on either side [of the Temple] entrances opened to these rooms from the gate [of the Temple (according to the experts in Talmud) in the midst of its gates, between the entrances to the Temple situated at either side of the wall]. But the highest part had not those rooms and in proportion it was narrower, but forty cubits higher, and not so adorned as the lower part. We can deduce, thus, that the entire height was one hundred cubits, when we add the sixty cubits of the lower floor. ~ The front altar of the Temple, which was fieen cubits high, fiy cubits long and wide and which was square, had on its corners a raised surface like horns, and a quite a steep slant led to it from the South. It had been built without iron and iron had never touched it. A beautiful railing of the most beautiful stone, a cubit high, surroun‑ ded the Temple and the altar, separating the people [turned to the East] from the Priests. All the city kept those who suffered from gonorrhoea away, that is, those who could not retain semen, and the lepers; menstruating women were also forbidden entry and not even women free from impurity were allowed to pass the limit mentioned before. Males who had not been completely chaste and those Priests who were being purified were denied access to the inner courtyard [where that railing stood in their way]. Until here Josephus, who repeats the laer elsewhere (Contra Appion. l. 6):

[fol. 22] The Temple had four porticos [or courtyards with their por‑ ticos] which surrounded it, and each one of them had its own protection according to the law. And thus everybody was allowed access to the outer one, foreigners included [for this reason it was called the courtyard of the peoples]; only menstruating women were not allowed access. To the second portico [as the elevation built by way of a portico was called] all Jews and their wives if they were free of all impurity, could enter. To the third one, the male Jews who remained pure and purified. To the fourth, Priests covered with priestly vestments. To the innermost part, only the princes of the Priests.

99

The Temple of Solomon

Hisce consentanea scribunt Talmudici (Consule codicem Middoth interprete Constantino L’Empereur. Item quae Capellus et Arias Montanus ex Rabbinis in medium produxerunt) tradentes Atrium magnum (quod montem domus vocant) quadratum fuisse longumque et latum extrinsecus quingentos cubitos et contabulatum porticu ante porticum id est duplici porticu cinctum: interiora vero cincta primum muro cancellato duos cubitos Judaicos vulgares alto quem dicunt gdwM Soreg, dein muro solido interiore dicto lyx Chajil, cujus altitudo versus Orientem decem erat cubitorum; ex aliis autem regionibus major; postea spatio intermurali decem cubitos lato et intime portarum et exedrarum aedificiis. Portas duas orientales Talmudici (qui locum non viderant) confundunt inter se describentes unicam tantum eique ascribentes conditiones ambarum: australes vero pergendo ab occidente numerant tres portam ardoris portam oblationis et portam aquarum, tres item boreales domum incendii portam oblationis et portam prominentiae. Addit R. Jose portas duas occidentaliores unam in australi latere dictam portam Superiorem alteram in boreali latere dictam portam Jechoniae. Numerant itidem Talmudici sex conclavia in Atrio interiore. Collocanda sunt singula inter binas portas et exterius versus occidentem addenda alia duo ut in portis factum est. Namque ex Josepho manifestum est exedras duas in

[fol. 23] angulis atrii versus occidentem stetisse. Porta prominentiae habebat caenaculum et in ea sacerdotes superne excubias agebant et Levitae inferne ubi illi janua erat quae aperiebatur versus murum Chajil. Sic et Domus ardoris camerata erat et magna et quatuor habebat cubicula inferne duo in loco sancto id est in regione porticuum quae aperta erant in atrium interius duo vero in loco profano id est exterius in regione gazophylaciorum quae clausa erat ab atrio, eoque nomine extra atrium id est in loco comparative profano constituta. Et haec duo apperiebantur versus locum profanum id est versus spatium

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

99

The experts in Talmud write testimonies in accordance with this (consult the Middoth treatise explained by Constatino L’Empereuer. And likewise what Cappel and Arias Montano showed starting from rabbinic material) saying that the great courtyard (the one which was called The Mount of the House) had been square, five hundred cubits long and wide on the outside and covered in wood, with a portico in front of the portico, that is, surrounded by a double portico: the inner part was surrounded firstly by a wall with bars which measured two vulgar Jewish cubits high and which are called gdwM Soreg, aer by a solid interior wall called lyx Chajil, the height of which, to the East, was ten cubits, but on the other sides it was higher; finally, by the space between the walls which was ten cubits wide and which was where the gates and the constructions of the rooms were to be found. The ex‑ perts in Talmud, who had not seen the place, confuse the two eastern gates describing only one gate and ascribing the conditions of both to this one gate: they enumerate three southern gates advancing from the West: the gate of Burning, the gate of the Oblation, and the Waters gate, and likewise three northern gates: the house of the Fire, the gate of the Oblation and the gate of Prominence. R. José adds a further two eastern gates, one on the south side called Upper gate and the other, on the north side, called the gate of Jeconiah. Likewise the experts in Talmud count six rooms in the inner courtyard. Each one of these must be situated between the two gates and we must, further outside, to‑ wards the West, add another two, as was the case with the gates. As since Josephus it is clear that there were two rooms on the corners

[fol. 23] of the courtyard towards the West. The gate of Prominence had a cenacle, and there the Priests kept guard in the upper part and the Levites below, where it had the entrance which opened towards the Hayl wall. And likewise the House of Burning was arched and big and it had four rooms below: two in the holy place, that is, in the area of the porticos, which were open onto the inner courtyard; two in the profane place, that is to the outside, in the area of the living quarters which was closed from the courtyard and by this name situated outside the court‑ yard, that is, in a comparatively profane place. And the two opened to‑ wards the profane place, that is, towards the space which was between

100

The Temple of Solomon

intermurale. Similiter exedra quae dicebatur lapidis quadrati constituta erat partim in loco sancto id est supra porticum et partim in profano id est supra gazophylacium, et apperiebatur in locum profanum seu spatium intermurale, eratque amplissimum et augustissimum namque sedebat in eo Synedrium magnum seniorum septuaginta. Descriptis concipe caeteras portas et exedras similes fuisse ut atrium uniforme constituatur. At in porta orientali duo tantum erant cubicula inferne, conclave Phinesi Vestiarii a dextra porta seu ad Aquilonem et conclave coquentium sartagines a sinistra. Unde colligitur illud atrii latus angustius constitutum gazophylaciis caruisse. In angulis atrii mulierum extrinsecus loco exedrarum erant atriola quatuor singula 40 cubitos longa. Ea utique construxerat Zerubbabel vice atriorum quae fuerant in angulis atrii magni. Latitudinem atrii faeminarum (inter haec atriola) Talmudicii ponunt 135 cubitorum sacrorum: muros autem ejus describunt leves et planos et loco porticus adjunctum fuisse podium in circuitu ut mulieres superne prospicerent adorando, viri autem inferne.

[fol. 24] Sub atrio Israelis erant cellae quae apperiebantur in atrium faeminarum. In iis Levitae citharas, nablia, cymbala et caetera musica instrumenta reponebant. Ad orientem ascendebatur ex atrio magno gradibus duodecim in atrium faeminarum et ex atrio illo gradibus quindecim semicircularibus in atrium Israelis quod cubitis sacris 135 longum et undecim latum erat. Dividebatur hoc atrium ab atrio sacerdotum ascensu cubiti unius, unde Talmudici conjectantur atrium Israelis altius fuisse, cum tamen ascensus ille fuerit Lorica cubitalis Josephi areas ejusdem altitudinis disterminas. Erat utique atrium Israelis ipse margo orientalis atrii Sacerdotum. In margine boreali inter loricam et portam oblationis e regione altaris erat laniena ubi sacrificia ad octo columnas suspensa nudabantur pellibus et carnes super mensas totidem disponebantur et

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

100

the walls. Equally, the room which was called of the square stone was si‑ tuated partly in the holy place, that is, on the portico, and partly in the profane place, that is, on a room, it opened towards the profane place or the space between the walls and it was a very spacious place and very dignified as the great Sanhedrin of seventy elders sat there. Ima‑ gine that the rest of the gates and rooms were similar to those described so that a uniform courtyard was formed. But in the eastern gate there were only two rooms below, the room of Phinehas, in charge of ves‑ tments, on the side of the right hand gate or to the South, and the room for the cooks’ utensils on the le. From where we deduce that that side of the courtyard, which was narrower, had no rooms. In the corners of the women’s courtyard, in the outer part of the place of the rooms, there were four small courtyards, each of which was forty cubits long. These had been built by Zerubbabel instead of the courtyards which had been in the corners of the great courtyard. The width of the women’s court‑ yard (between these small courtyards) is established by the experts in Talmud as one hundred and thirty five sacred cubits; but they describe that the walls of this courtyard had been light and plain and that instead of a portico a podium had been added all around, so that the women, from above, could see while worshipping and the men, from below.

[fol. 24] Under the courtyard of Israel there were rooms which ope‑ ned on to the women’s courtyard. In these the Levites kept the zithers, the nablas, the cymbals and the other musical instruments. To the East, one went up, from the great courtyard to the women’s courtyard, by twelve steps, and from that courtyard, by fieen semicircular steps to the courtyard of Israel which was one hundred and thirty five sacred cubits long and eleven cubits wide. This courtyard was separated from the courtyard of the Priests by an elevation of one cubit, from where the experts in Talmud suppose that the courtyard of Israel had been higher but, given that the elevation was the railing, one cubit high, men‑ tioned by Josephus, we can determine the areas of the same height. The courtyard of Israel was, in turn, the eastern limit of the courtyard of the Priests. At the northern limit, between the railing and the gate of Obla‑ tion, facing the altar, was the place where the skins of the victims of the sacrifices were removed, hanging them on as many as eight columns,

101

The Temple of Solomon

lavabantur. Per portam oblationis inferebantur sacrificia mactanda ad boreale latus altaris intra loricam. Ibi erant 24 annuli ordinibus sex pavimento infixi ad quos ligabant mactanda sacrificia. Inter annulos et mensas cubiti erant quatuor, et loricam per intervallum illud transiisse constat quia ponunt Rabbini (Maimon. De Cultu Div. Tract. 7 c. 1) casum ubi aliquis extra atrium intimum stans manum porrigit intro et sacrificium vel occidit vel occisi sanguinem excipit: ut et ubi bestia mactanda pedem porrigit extra atrium. Unde constat insuper loricam ibi apertam fuisse: quod etiam necessarium erat ut sacrificia caesa prompte efferrentur in Lanienam. Atqui ostio loricae respondere debebat ostium portae adeoque stabat porta e regione altaris directe. Per oppositam oblationis portam dictam etiam portam primitiarum inferebantur primitiae animalium quae ad australe latus altaris mactandae erant. Et inter portas illas Talmudici ponunt latitudinem 135 cubitorum sacrorum eamque

[fol. 25] sic computant. Ascensus altaris 30 cubitorum. Latituto altaris 32 cub. inter altare et locum annulorum 8 cub. Locus annulorum 24 cub. Inde ad mensas 4 cub. A mensis ad columnas 4 cub. A columnis ad murum atrii 8 cub. Reliqui 25 cubiti sunt partim spatium a columnis occupatum, partim spatium inter ascensum altaris et murum australem atrii. Hos Rabbini (Maimon. De Cultu Div. Tract. 1. c. 5) recentiores bifariam dividunt. Ego vero ita diviserim ut altare stet in medio atrii: quod fiet si viginti cubiti cum dimidio deputentur distantiae inter ascensum altaris et murum et reliqui quatuor cum dimidio columnis. Imo vero ex istis quatuor cum dimidio tribuerim unum cum dimidio latitudini mensarum (Ezek. 40, 42) et reliquos tres columnarum basibus. Namque mensis

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

101

their meat was arranged on the tables and it was washed. By the gate of Oblation the sacrifices which had to be offered up were taken to the northern side of the altar, inside the railing. There could be found twenty‑four rings of six classes, fixed to the ground, where the victims to be sacrificed were tied. Between the rings and the tables there were four cubits, and there is proof that through that intermediate space the railing had passed because the Rabbis (Maimon. De Cultu Div. Tract. 7 c. 1) expose the case of somebody who, situated outside the inner court‑ yard, extends his hand inwards and kills the victim or collects the blood of the dead animal saying how and where he advances his foot outside the courtyard in order to kill the animal. From there we hear also that the railing was open there; this was also necessary to take the dead vic‑ tims to the place where they were deposited quickly. But the entrance to the railing must have corresponded to the entrance to the gate and for this reason there was a gate which opened directly in front of the area of the altar. Through the gate of Oblation which was facing this, and which was also called the gate of the First Fruits, the first fruits of the animals which were to be sacrificed were taken to the southern side of the altar. And the experts in Talmud assign a width of one hundred thirty five sacred cubits to the space between those gates and

[fol. 25] they calculate it thus: the ascent to the altar, thirty cubits; the width of the altar, thirty‑two cubits; the space between the altar and the place where the rings are, eight cubits; the place of the rings, twenty‑four cubits; from there to the tables, four cubits; from the ta‑ bles to the columns, four cubits; from the columns to the wall of the courtyard, eight cubits. The remaining twenty‑five cubits are, partly, the space occupied by the columns, partly the space between the as‑ cent to the altar and the southern wall of the courtyard. The more modern Rabbis divide these into two parts (Maimon. De Cultu Div. Tract 1. c. 5). But I would divide so that the altar is situated in the middle of the courtyard, which will happen if twenty‑five and a half cubits are assigned to the distance between the ascent to the altar and the wall, and the four and a half remaining cubits are assigned to the columns. And beer again, of these four and a half, I would assign one and a half to the width of the tables (Ezek. 40: 42) and the

102

The Temple of Solomon

in directum positis columnae totidem e regione, singulis singulae respondentes disponebantur itidem in directum adeoque non plus occupabant spatii secundum latitudinem quam pro ratione basis columnae unius. Altaris igitur in medio positi centrum a parietibus portarum distabat cubitis 67 1/2, a lorica vero cubitis 50 circiter, adeoque atrium intra loricam latum erat cubitos centum, perinde ut etiam Hecataeus apud Joseph. (Contra Appion. lib. 1) affirmat. Sic igitur duplicata fuit latitudo atrii tabernaculi Mosaici, et praeterea margines utrobique latae erant cubitos 17 1/2. Longitudinem atrii Talmudici ponunt 187 cubitorum sacrorum eamque sic computant. Locus incessus sacerdotum non ministrantium inter atrium Israelis et altare situm undecim cubitorum. Altare 32 cub. Inter altare et vestibulum templi 22 cub. Templum 100 cub. Inter templum et murum occidentalem atrii 11 cub. His omnibus adde marginem orientalem seu atrium Israelis 11 cub. et complebitur summa 187 cub. Hic a centro altaris ad

[fol. 26] occidentalem terminum atrii sunt cubiti 149, duplicata mensura Mosaica quam proxime. Sed ex altera parte centri altaris ad usque loricam cubitalem versus orientem, ubi juxta proportionem Mosaicam duplicatam deberent esse cubiti 50 sunt tantum cubiti 27: id adeo quia atrium illud a parte orientali Judaei decurtarant ut atrio faeminarum plus relinqueretur spatii. Inde etiam gazophylacia ibi nulla constituerunt et marginem atrii ibi plusquam tertia parte minorem fecerunt quam ex aliis lateribus. In eadem proportione diminuerim quoque deambulationem inter columnas orientalis porticus. Porro templi dimensiones secundum longitudinem Talmudici sic definiunt. Vestibuli paries anterior 5 cub. Vestibulum 11 cub. Paries anterior templi 6 cub. Locus sanctus 40 cub. Velum 1 cub. Adytum 20 cub. Paries posterior 6 cub.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

102

three remaining cubits to the bases of the columns. Thus, facing the tables placed in a straight line, an equal number of columns were si‑ tuated, also in a straight line, corresponding mutually, and thus, they did not occupy more space in width than the equivalent of the base of a column. Thus, the centre of the altar situated in the middle was at a distance of sixty‑seven and a half cubits from the walls of the gates, from the surrounding railing fiy cubits and, therefore, the courtyard inside the fence was one hundred cubits wide, as also sta‑ ted by Hecataeus, according to Josephus (Contra Appion. lib. 1). In this way the width of the courtyard of the Tabernacle of Moses was duplicated and, moreover, the margins of either side were seventeen and a half cubits wide. The experts in Talmud estimate the length of the courtyard at one hundred and eighty‑seven cubits, calculated thus: the place of passage of the Priests who did not officiate, bet‑ ween the courtyard of Israel and the place of the altar, eleven cubits; the altar, thirty‑two cubits; between the altar and the vestibule of the Temple, twenty‑two cubits; the temple, one hundred cubits; between the Temple and the western wall of the courtyard, eleven cubits. Add to all these, on one hand, the eastern margin or the courtyard of Is‑ rael, eleven cubits, and the sum of one hundred and eighty‑seven cubits will be reached. On the other hand, from the centre of the altar

[fol. 26] to the western limit of the courtyard is one hundred and forty‑nine cubits, approximately duplicating Moses’ measurement. But from the other part of the centre of the altar until the cubit‑high railing in an easterly direction, which according to the duplicated proportion of Moses should be fiy cubits, is only twenty‑seven: this happens be‑ cause the Jews had cut that courtyard on the eastern side so that there would be more space in the women’s courtyard. It was also for this re‑ ason that they did not build any room there and they made the edge of the courtyard on that side a third smaller than on the other sides. By this same proportion I would also reduce the space between the co‑ lumns of the eastern portico. Below the experts in Talmud define the dimensions of the Temple in relation to length as follows: the front wall of the vestibule, five cubits; the vestibule, eleven cubits; the front wall of the Temple, six cubits; the holy place, forty cubits; the veil, a cubit;

103

The Temple of Solomon

Thalamorum occidentalium latitudo 6 cub. Paries thalamorum 5 cub. summa 100 cub. Latitudinem vero templi sic computant. Murus impluvii 5 cub. Impluvium seu spatium in quod pluviae de templo defluerent 3 cub. Paries thalamorum 5 cub. Latitudo thalamorum 6 cub. Paries templi 6 cub. Inde ad medium templi 10 cub. Summa 35 cub. quae duplicata facit latitudinem totam cubitorum 70. Caeterum cur murus pluviae cohibendae tam crasus constituatur plane non video. Malim loricam elegantem latam et altam duobus tantum cubitis constituere et reliquos tres latitudinis cubitos transferre ad thalamos. Sic enim latitudo tota templi cum thalamis suis erit sexaginta cubitorum omnino ut affirmant Joseph. et Ezra (6, 3). Thalamos vero Talmudici numerant 38 in circuitu templi nimirum quindecim ad austrum et quindecim ad aquilonem id est in singulis tabulatis quinque, ad occidentem vero tres in infimo tabulato tres in medio ad duos in supremo. Ex atrio ascendebatur in vestibulum templi gradibus

[fol. 27] duodecim. Ostium Vestibuli latum erat 20 cubitis altum 40, ostium templi latum 10 altum 20, eique quatuor erant valvae, duae intus et duae foris. Exteriores aperiebantur intra Vestibulum, interiores intra templum. Ad latera Vestibuli duo erant atriola hinc inde. Per borealem ingrediebatur is qui templi januas aperire vellet, inde vero per meatum in media muri crassitudine pergebat usque ad ostium alterum in poste templi et per illud in spatium inter valvas exteriores et interiores et ibi eas reserabat. In eodem meatu ibatur ad cochleam in angulo templi unde tertium ostium ducebat in infimos thalamos quartum in medios quintum in supremos. Nam in angulo templi versus orientem et aquilonem Talmudici ponunt ostia quinque. Inde vero circumdabatur Templum in singulis tabulatis

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

103

the innermost part, twenty cubits; the back wall, six cubits; the width of the western chambers, six cubits; the wall of the chambers, five cubits. In all, one hundred cubits. They calculate the width of Temple as fo‑ llows: the impluvium wall, five cubits; the impluvium or place towards which the rains flowed from the Temple, three cubits; the wall of the chambers, five cubits; the width of the chambers, six cubits; the wall of the Temple six cubits; from there to the centre of the Temple, ten cubits. In all, thirty‑five cubits, a quantity which, doubled, gives the total width of seventy cubits. Otherwise, I do not see any clear reason why such a thick wall would be built to contain the rain. I would prefer to build an elegant railing only two cubits wide and high and add the remaining three cubits in width to the chambers. Thus, all the width of the Temple with its chambers will be sixty cubits on all sides, as stated by Josephus and Ezra (6: 3). The experts in Talmud enumerate thirty‑eight chambers around the Temple, doubtlessly fieen facing South and fieen facing North, that is, five on each floor, and to the West three on the ground floor, three in the middle and two on the highest floor. From the court‑ yard one ascended to the vestibule of the Temple via twelve steps.

[fol. 27] The entrance to the vestibule was twenty cubits wide by forty cubits high; the gate of the temple was ten wide by twenty high and it had four leaves, two inside and two outside. The exterior ones opened onto the inside of the vestibule and the interior ones opened to the interior of the Temple. To the sides of the vestibule, on either side, there were two small gates. By the one on the northern side anyone who wanted to open the gates of the Temple entered; from there, through an opening which could be found in the middle of the thickness of the wall, one went to the other entrance, that of the jamb of the Temple, and through here to the space which was between the exterior and interior leaves and there one opened them. Through this same opening one went to the winding stairs which was in a corner of the Temple from where a third entrance led to the lowest chambers, a fourth entrance to the middle chambers, and a fih entrance to the highest ones. The ex‑ perts in Talmud, thus, situate the five entrances in the corner of the Tem‑ ple facing towards the East and the North. And from there one could circle the Temple going from chamber to chamber inside each floor by

The Temple of Solomon

104

eundo ex thalamo in thalamum per ostium in pariete intermedio. Atque haec sunt fere quae describunt Talmudici. Ut compleamus descriptionem hujus templi conferendae sunt mensurae Josephi et Talmudicorum inter se. De his fuse disputare locus non est. Dicam breviter quod Talmudici utuntur cubito sacro palmorum sex quod Judaei pro mensuris gentium usurpabant sub nominibus gentilibus mensuras proprias, ut cubitum sacrum pro passu romano minori, duos cubitos sacros pro passu majori, cubitos sacros mille seu Berah pro milliari minori cubitos sacros bis mille seu iter sabbati pro milliari majori, mensuram quatuor palmorum sacrorum pro cubito Graecorum, ejusmodi cubitos 400 pro stadio Graecorum, et longitudinem cursus equorum Regiorum in valle juxta templum calamorum 70 circiter seu cubitorum sacrorum 400 pro stadio majori. Et hoc stadio describit Joseph. ambitum atrii exterioris. Stadium alterum intelligunt Talmudici (Talm. Hierosol. in Joma c. 6. Vide et Buxtorf Lex. Tal. in syr et Arian Montanum De Mensuris) ubi aequant milliare id est bis mille cubitos sacros stadiis septem cum dimidio. Et huius stadii cubito Joseph. in descriptione templi ad gentiles scribens passim utitur

[fol. 28] praeterquam in decantatis quibusdam et in S. Scriptura memoratis templi stricte dicti mensuris ubi cubitum sacrum retinendum esse putavit. Constabit id collatione cubitorum Josephi cum cubitis sacris Talmudicorum in sequente tabula.

Altitudo muri Chajil

{

externa

interna Differentia gradibus 19 vel 20 semicubitalibus respondens

Cubiti a Josepho positi 40

Cubiti Jos. ad Sacros reducti 26 2/3

25

16 2/3

15

10

Cubiti a Talmudicis positi

9 1/2 vel 10

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

104

the entrance in the dividing wall. This is approximately what the ex‑ perts in Talmud describe. In order to complete the description of this Temple we must com‑ pare the measurements of Josephus and those of the experts in Tal‑ mud. This is not the place to enter into a lengthy discussion on these things. I will briefly say that the experts in Talmud use the sacred cubit of six palms and that the Jews, instead of the measurements of the fo‑ reign peoples, used their own measurements under foreign names, like the sacred cubit for the minor Roman pace, two sacred cubits for the major pace, a thousand sacred cubits or Berah for a thousand minor paces, two thousand sacred cubits or Sabbath day’s journey for a thousand major paces; the measurement of four sacred handbre‑ adths for the cubit of the Greeks, likewise four hundred cubits for the stadion of the Greeks and the longitude of the race of the royal horses through the valley to the Temple, approximately seventy rods or four hundred sacred cubits, for the major stadion. And with this stadion Josephus describes the measurement of the outer courtyard. The experts in Talmud (Talm. Jerus. in Yoma. c. 6. See also Buxtorf Lex. Tal. in syr and Arias Montano On the measurements) interpret the other stadion when they consider a thousand paces, that is two thousand sacred cubits, equal to seven and a half stadia. And Jose‑ phus habitually uses the cubit of this stadion in the description of the Temple writing to the pagans,

[fol. 28] except in some measurements of the Temple itself, repe‑ ated and recorded in the Sacred Scripture, where he thought that the sacred cubit should be maintained. There will be a record of this in the comparison of Josephus’ cubits with the sacred cubits of the ex‑ perts in Talmud in the following table. Cubits used by Josephus

Height of the Hayl wall

{

external

40

internal 25 Difference in steps 19 or 20 which correspond withhalf cubits 15

Cubits used by Josephus reduced to Sacred cubits 26 2/3

Cubits used by the experts in Talmud

16 2/3 10

9 1/2 o 10

The Temple of Solomon

105 Altitudo septi cancellati altitudo Portrarum latitudo altitudo Altaris latitudo Columnarum ambitus Templi altitudo interna latitudo Ostii templi altitudo NE forsan rectius ΛΒ Vestibuli latitudo interna latitudo Ostii vestibuli altitudo

{ {

{

{

3 30

2 20

2 cub. vulg. 20

15 15

10 10

10 10

50 12 60 16

33 1/3 8 40 10 2/3

32 8 40 10

32 20 25

21 1/3 13 1/3 16 2/3

20 11 20

70

46 2/3

40

Sic mensurae Josephi ad sacras reductae aut plane congruunt cum iis Talmudicorum aut proprius ad eas accedunt. Nam Josephus ad gentiles scribens, haud satis sollicitus erat de mensuris ex actis et excessu peccare amabat. Cognitis vero Josephi mensuris redeamus jam ad templum. Exedram inter binas portas Josephus ponit triginta cubitorum id est viginti sacrorum. Saepe utitur Josephus rotundis numeris. Scripserim potius viginti duos. Nam columnae binae quibus exedrae singulae sustinebantur minori spatio includi nequeunt. Harum ambitus consensu Josephi et Talmudicorum erat octo cubitorum sacrorum. Unde scapi diameter est 2 6/11 cub. Ad hanc in proportione ut tria ad duo capta

[fol. 29] latitudo basis erit 3 9/11 cubitorum seu 23 palmorum fere. Sit ista tantum 22 palmorum. Intervalla harum basium ex rationibus architectonicis non debent esse minora basibus. Sunto ipsis aequalia (nam proportio illa simplicissima est) et columnae duae cum totidem semicolumnis et intercolumniis tribus occupabunt spatium viginti duorum cubitorum exedrae uni inter binas portas

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI Height of the fenced area Height of the doors Width of the doors Height of the altar Width of the altar Perimeter of the columns Internal height of the Temple Width of the gate of the Temple Height NE, perhaps more correctly ΛΒ Internal width of the vestibule Width of the entrance to the vestibule Height of the entrance to the vestibule

105

3 30 15 15 50 12 60 16

2 20 10 10 33 1/3 32 8 40 10 2/3

2 cod. vulg. 20 10 10

32 20

21 13 1/3

1/3 20 11

25

16 2/3

20

70

46 2/3

40

8 40 10

Thus, the measurements given by Josephus, reduced to sacred measurements evidently agree with those of the experts in Talmud or, beer still, they are approximately the same. As Josephus, when writing for the Gentiles, was not too careful with measurements, as we can see, and he liked to overdo things. As we now know Jose‑ phus’ measurements, let us return to the Temple. Josephus assigns thirty cubits, that is, twenty sacred cubits, to the room which was between the two gates. Josephus oen uses rounded numbers. I would rather have wrien twenty‑two, as the two columns on which each room was sustained cannot be included in a lesser space. The perimeter of these columns was eight sacred cubits (here Josephus and the experts in Talmud agree). Therefore the diameter of the sha is two cubits and six elevenths. In a proportion taken on this as three to two,

[fol. 29] the width of the base will be three cubits and nine elevenths or almost twenty‑three handbreadths. Let us suppose that this is only twenty‑two handbreadths. The intervals of these bases, according to architectural proportions, should not be lesser than the bases. If these have equal intervals (as that proportion is very simple), the two co‑ lumns and two semicolumns and the three bays will occupy a space estimated at twenty‑two cubits between the two doors for a room. I

106

The Temple of Solomon

deputandum. Portam vero aequarim exedrae dempto ostio, sic ut ala utraque latitudine 11 cub. et ostium latitudine 10 cub. compleant latitudinem totam 32 cub. Nam latitudines 11 et 22 cubitorum satis affectantur in his aedificiis et ostia portarum omnium praeter orientalem primam consensu Josephi et Talmudicorum lata erant 10 cubitis et alta 20. Harum vero dimensionum veritas plane demostratur ex consensu portarum et exedrarum cum partibus atrii. Portae duae oblationis latitudine 32 cubitorum exacte respondebunt altari intermedio. Et forsan latitudo altaris ideo aucta fuit ut hoc responderet portis. Exedrae duae proximae occidentem versus latitudine viginti duorum cubitorum respondebunt spatio ejusdem latitudinis inter altare et vestibulum templi. Portae duae incendii et exedrae duae sequentes portaeque ultimae occupabunt spatium omne cubitorum 86 e regione vestibuli templique supra thalamos suos laterales surgentis. Et exedrae duae ultimae cum parietibus suis occidentalibus tres cubitos crassis implebunt spatium reliquum cubitorum 25 usque ad murum occidentalem atrii. Ad Orientem vero exedrae duae ultimae latitudine 22 cub. respondebunt spatio ejusdem latitudinis inter altare et porticum orientalem et portarum duarum ultimarum alae occidentales latitudine undecim cubitorum porticum orientalem capient et ostia ducent [fol. 30] in interjectum spatium intermurale ejusdem latitudinis, et alae duae orientales excurrent ultra versus atrium faeminarum. Nimirum una earum dicta fuit porta prominentiae quod promineret extra murum atrii interioris. Stabat igitur partim intra partim extra. Similiter et porta altera dicta aquarum stabat partim extra. Nam Sacerdotes qui excubabant in domo Abtines supra eam extructa, dicuntur excubare extra atrium. Imo ostia harum portarum erant extra atrium interius eo quod faeminae per ea pergebant in atrium suum. Stabant tamen haec portae aliqua sui parte in atrio interiore eo quod erant ex novem argenteis portis a quibus Josephus aeneam

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

106

would adapt the door to the entrance space taken from the room so that both wings, with a width of eleven cubits, and the entrance space with a width of ten cubits, complete a total width of thirty‑two cubits, as the widths of eleven and twenty‑two cubits are quite oen reached in these buildings, and the openings of all the gates, except the first eastern gate, according to the testimonies of Josephus and the experts in Talmud (which tally on this point), were ten cubits wide and twenty high. The authenticity of these dimensions is clearly demonstrated by the harmony of the gates and of the rooms with the parts of the court‑ yard. The two gates of Oblation, with a width of exactly thirty‑two cu‑ bits, will correspond with the intermediate altar. And likewise the width of the altar may have been increased so that it would correspond with the gates. The following two rooms, looking west, twenty‑two cubits wide, will correspond with the space of this same width bet‑ ween the altar and the vestibule of the Temple. The two gates of Fire, the following two rooms and the last gates will occupy all the space of eighty‑six cubits facing the vestibule and the Temple which emerges on its lateral chambers. And the last two rooms, with their western walls three cubits thick, will fill the remaining space of twenty‑five cu‑ bits as far as the western wall of the courtyard. The last two rooms which face to the East, with a width of twenty‑two cubits, will corres‑ pond with the space of this same width between the altar and eastern portico; the western wings of the last two gates, with a width of eleven cubits, will span the eastern portico and their entrances will lead

[fol. 30] to the space which lay between the walls of the same width situated in the middle, and the two eastern wings will extend further, towards the women’s courtyard. Doubtlessly one of these was called the gate of Prominence because it stood out from the wall of the interior courtyard, as it was part inside and part outside. Likewise, also the other gate, called Waters gate, was part outside. Thus, it is said of the Priests who where on guard in the house of Abtines, built on the Waters gate, that they were on guard outside the courtyard. But the entrances to these gates were rather more outside the inner courtyard because it was through them that the women went to their courtyard. Neverthe‑ less, these gates were partly in the inner courtyard because they were

The Temple of Solomon

107

portam in atrio faeminarum sitam distinguit nominando eam portam ἔξω τῆς νέως, extra templum id est extra sacrarium interius. Stabant igitur reliquae novem in peribolo illius sacrarii. Portam prominentiae R. Jose vocat portam cantorum. Nimirum duobus in locis cantabant Levitae, uno supra gradus quindecim hoc est in spatio intermurali inter hanc portam et portam aquarum, altero in suggesto posito ad loricam cubitalem versus altare. Denique ex eo quod populus omnis introibant17 per has portas tam in atrium Israelis quam in atrium faeminarum omnino dicendum est eas situm inter medium obtinuisse ducentes in spatium intermurale atrio utrique interjectum. Tenemus igitur situm harum portarum exacte atque adeo situm etiam et magnitudinem reliquarum portarum et exedrarum usque ad occidentalem murum atrii. Has omnes portas aequales fuisse et aequalibus intervallis ab invicem distasse omnino decorum erat et praeterea colligitur ex januis septi cancellati e regione, quarum distantias Josephus aequales describit. Atqui portae quatuor aequidistantes non possunt alia quavis ratione secundum atrii longitudinem regulariter disponi.

[fol. 31] Hisce sic determinatis habemus simul crassitudinem porticus orientalis undecim cubitorum, latitudini alarum occidentalium portae prominentiae et portae aquarum respondentem. Eam sic computo. Basis columnae 22 palmorum. Deambulationis latitudo 4 1/2 cub. semi‑basis 11 palm. Murus semicolumnis intertextus 1 cub. summa 11 cub. Hanc una cum atrii muro occidentali 2 cub. adde praefatae atrii longitudini 187 cub. fiet longitudo tota 200 cub. Sic Judaei longitudinem duplicatam atrii tabernaculi quae intra loricam cubitalem inveniri debuit, retinuerunt in tota atrii longitudine inclusis aedificiis. Porro capiatur (juxta rationes supra expositas) latitudo deambulationis in porticu boreali ad latitudinem deambulationis in porticu orientali in

17

The author makes an agreement ad sensum.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

107

between the nine silver gates from which Josephus separates the bronze gate situated in the women’s courtyard calling it ἔξω τῆς νέως, the one outside the Temple, that is, outside the sacred area of the Temple. Thus, the remaining nine gates were in the peribolos of that innermost part of the sacred area. R. Jose calls the gate of Prominence the gate of the Singers. No doubt the Levites sang in both places, one on the fieen steps, that is, in the space to be found between the walls, between this gate and the Waters gate; the other, on the elevation situated next to the cubit‑high railing looking towards the altar. Finally for this reason, as all the people entered by these gates both to the courtyard of Israel and to the women’s courtyard, we must, in general, say that these [gates] had had an intermediate place given that they led to the space which was between the walls situated between one courtyard and the other. We have, then, the exact position of these gates, and as well as their po‑ sition, also the size of the other gates and of the rooms until the western wall of the courtyard. It would have been important, no doubt, that all these gates were the same and that they were equidistant from each other, and also, we can deduce, from the gates of the fenced area in front, the distances of which Josephus describes as the same. However, for some other reason, the four gates cannot be situated regularly equi‑ distant along the length of the courtyard.

[fol. 31] Once these things are delimited, we have, at the same time, the thickness of the eastern portico, eleven cubits, which corresponded to the width of the western wings of the gate of Prominence and the Waters gate. I calculate this as follows: the base of the column, twenty‑ two palms; the width of the passageway, four and a half cubits; the se‑ mibase, eleven handbreadths; the wall lying against the semicolumn, a cubit; the sum of eleven cubits; add this, together with the western wall of the courtyard, two cubits, to the length of the courtyard men‑ tioned before as one hundred and eighty‑seven cubits, and we will have a total length of two hundred cubits. Thus, the Jews maintained the duplicated length of the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which must have been found inside the cubit‑high railing, as the total length of the courtyard with the buildings included. Again we will take (according to the reasons given above) the width of the passageway of the nor‑

108

The Temple of Solomon

proportione marginum atrii porticibus adjacentium hoc est ut 17 1/2 ad 11 et deambulationis in porticu boreali latitudo erit dupla latitudinis basis columnae quam proxime. Sic inter axes columnarum ad utramque partem deambulationis erunt undecim cubiti: quae mensura valde affectatur in his aedificiis et quantum sentio ab hacce porticuum latitudine originem duxit. Tota autem atrii latitudo inter parietes porticuum erit 160 2/3 cub. Addantur utrinque Gazophylacium quasi cub. 11 inclusis parietibus et locus graduum quasi 8 cub. incluso pariete extimo. Atque tota atrii latitudo inclusis aedificiis erit 200 cub. congruenter descriptioni Ezekielis. Sic sacrarium longitudine et latitudine 200 cub. quadratum erit, et figura illa spatio intermurali Talmudicorum decem cubitos lato circumdata circumambulantibus sensibilis et notabilis reddetur.

[fol. 32] Haec autem ita se habere plane confirmat Josephus affirmando sacrarium sursum quadratum fuisse et proprio muro circumdatum. Intelligit enim non totum sacrarium incluso atrio faeminarum ut opinatus est Capellus sed sacrarii planum superius ad quod ex atrio faeminarum per gradus quindecim ascendebatur quodque strictius dicebatur sacrarium. Verba ejus τετράγωνον δὲ ἄνω sursum quadratum perspicue significant planum superius. Porro murum quo Josephus et Talmudici sacrarium cingi volunt id est murum Chajil constituerim crassissimum tum quod extimus erat et in se habebat fores portarum tum quod romani ut author est Josephus (Joseph. Bell. Jud. l. 7. c. 22) eundem sine intermisione per sex continuos dies ariete omnium fortissimo cui urbium moenia haud difficulter cedere solerent pulsando nihil omnino profecerunt. Crassitudine igitur sex cubitorum aemuletur is murum extimum

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

108

thern portico until the width of the passageway of the eastern portico in the proportion of the limits of the courtyard adjacent with the por‑ ticos, that is, as from seventeen and a half to eleven, and the width of the passageway of the northern portico will be as near as possible to double the width of the base of the column. Thus, between the axes of the columns at either side of the passageway there will be eleven cubits. This measurement is achieved especially in these buildings, and, as far as I know, it was the origin of the same width of the porticos. All the width of the courtyard between the walls of the porticos will be one hundred and sixty cubits and two thirds. Add to either side a room of almost eleven cubits, including the walls, and the place of the steps of almost eight cubits, including the outermost wall. And all the width of the courtyard, including the buildings, will be two hun‑ dred cubits, in accordance with the description given by Ezekiel. Thus, the sacred area, with a length and width of two hundred cu‑ bits, will be square and thus that beautiful visible structure will be reproduced for those who pass there, surrounded by the space bet‑ ween the walls, ten cubits wide, of the experts in Talmud.

[fol. 32] Josephus clearly confirms that he estimated these things like so stating that the sacred area above had been square and surrounded by its own wall. Understand thus not all the sacred area, including the women’s courtyard as Cappel believed, but rather the upper floor of this sacred area to which one ascended by fieen steps from the wo‑ men’s courtyard and which, more strictly, was called sacred area. His words τετράγωνον δὲ ἄνω sursum quadratum evidently designate a higher plan. Meanwhile, the wall by which Josephus and the experts in Tal‑ mud want the sacred area to be surrounded, that is, the Hayl wall, would, in my estimation, be extremely thick, on one hand because it was the outermost wall and held inside the leaves of the doors; also because the Romans, as recounted by Josephus (Bel. Jud. l. 7. c. 22), though they struck it for six consecutive days with the strongest baering ram of all, against which city walls normally gave in wi‑ thout difficulty, achieved nothing at all. So, thus, with a thickness of six cubits, this wall will be the same as the outermost wall of the tem‑

109

The Temple of Solomon

templi Ezek. cap. 40, 5, et tota sanctuarii latitudo inclusis spatio intermurali et hoc muro Chajil, erit 232 cubitorum. Detrahatur latitudo interna 135 cub. et reliqui dimidium 48 1/2 cub. erit longitudo portae: cui si addideris ornamenta frontium utrinque facile complebitur longitudo illa 50 cubitorum quam Ezekiel portis assignavit. Portis autem eousque productis, debet spatium intermurale per medium omnium ostiis transversis decem cubitos latis viginti altis transire. Cum hisce latitudinum mensuris conspirant etiam mensurae atrii faeminarum. Atriola angularia vicem gerentia atriolorum in angulis atrii magni debent illis tam latitudine quam longitudine respondere.

[fol. 33] Sic autem atrium faeminarum latitudine 135 cubitorum et atriola duo latitudinibus 30 cubitorum (Ezek. 46, 22) et muris conjuctim latitudine 5 cubitorum complebunt latitudinem 200 cubitorum intra spatium intermurale perinde ut in atrio superiore. Tanto consensu computi omnes latitudinum se mutuo confirmant. Retrahantur jam portarum alae de angulis ubi Talmudici atriola collocant et longitudo sacrarii orientem versus incipiendo e porticu orientali ita computabitur. Spatium intermurale 10 cub. Murus ejus 1 cub. Atriolum 40 cub. Deambulatio cum muris suis inter atriola 9 cub. Atriolum alterum 40 cub. Summa 100 cub. Adde hinc sacrarium superius 200 cub. et inde murum orientalem atrii faeminarum 2 cub. et utrinque spatium intermurale 10 cub. et murum Chajil 6 cub. et sacrarii fiet longitudo tota 334 cubitorum. Ea longitudo confirmatur argumento duplici. Unum est quod Hecataeus apud Joseph. (Cont. App. lib. 1) tradit lapideum templi hujus peribolum longum fuisse quasi quinque plethris. Ibidem latitudinem Hecataeus ponit

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

109

ple of Ezek. chapter 40: 5, and all the width of the sanctuary, inclu‑ ding the space between the walls and this Hayl wall, will be two hundred and thirty‑two cubits. Take away the internal width of one hundred and thirty‑five cubits and half the rest will be the length of the gate, forty‑eight and a half cubits; if to this you add the orna‑ ments of the façades on either side, we can easily complete that length of fiy cubits which Ezekiel assigned to the doors. But, given that the doors were extended in this way, through the centre of all of them should pass the space which lies between the walls with transversal entrances ten cubits wide and twenty cubits tall. The measurements of the women’s courtyard also concur with these width measurements. The small angular courtyards, which were situated in the place of the small courtyards of the corners of the great courtyard, should correspond with those both in width and in length.

[fol. 33] And thus, the women’s courtyard, which was one hun‑ dred and thirty‑five cubits wide, and the two small courtyards, which were thirty cubits wide (Ezek. 46: 22), together with the walls, which were five cubits wide, will complete a width of two hundred cubits inside the space which lies between the walls, as is the case in the upper courtyards. All the calculations of width confirm each other mutually with such a great correspondence. Take away the wings of the gates of the corners where the experts in Talmud situate the small courtyards, and the length of the sacred area looking to the East, if we begin from the eastern portico, would be cal‑ culated as follows: space between the walls, ten cubits; wall of this, one cubit; small courtyard, forty cubits; passageway with its walls between the small courtyards, nine cubits; another small courtyard, forty cubits; total, one hundred cubits. Add on one hand the upper sacred area, two hundred cubits, and also the eastern wall of the women’s courtyard, two cubits, the space between the walls on either side, ten cubits, and the Hayl wall, six cubits, and we will have the total length of the sacred area, three hundred and thirty‑four cubits. This width is confirmed with a double argument. One is that Hecataeus in Josephus (Contra Appion. l. 1) tells us that the stone peribolos of this Temple had been almost five plethrons long. Likewise, Heacteus speaks about a length of one hun‑

110

The Temple of Solomon

cubitorum centum id est intra loricam. Cubiti illi centum sunt sacri adeoque Hecataeus vir gentilis et in Aegypto degens mensuras hasce a Judaeis acceperat idque in cubitis sacris neque noverat eas in cubitos graecorum suorum reducere. Cubitos igitur audiens cogitabat de vulgaribus et ob simplicitatem expresionis ponebat plethros. Restituantur cubiti et periboli lapidei longitudo erit cubitorum 333 1/3 vel numero integro cubitorum 334 ut supra. Alterum argumentum est quod altare stare debebat in medio sacrarii totius. Stabat enim olim in medio atrii magni et Judaei locum ejus haud facile mutaverint. Stare etiam debebat sacrarium interius in medio atrii magni ac terminis suis orientali et occidentali aequaliter distare ab illius lateribus,

[fol. 34] atque portas in medio reliquorum laterum suis Oblationum portis directe respicere. Situs alius irregularis et indecorus foret. Stabat itaque altare in communi centro. Atque ita se res habet in descriptione nostra. Stat altare in medio tum atrii interioris quod vestibulo templi hinc et porticu orientali inde terminatur, tum sanctuarii totius interioris, distans a muro extimo Chajil hinc et inde cubitis 161, atque adeo in medio etiam atrii magni. Non potest18 atrium mulierum cubito uno augeri vel minui quin cessabit concentricitas. Ut spatium inter altare et porticum orientalem ex una parte et spatium inter altare et vestibulum templi ex altera parte latitudine 22 cubitorum sibi mutuo respondent sic aedificia inter atrium interius et atrium faeminarum ex una parte et vestibulum templi inter atrium interius et locum separatum ex altera parte latitudine externa 22 cubitorum sibi mutuo respondent, sic etiam atrium faeminarum ex una parte et locus separatus ex altera parte latitudine cubitorum 89 sibi mutuo respondent et sic murus orientalis atrii faeminarum spatiumque intermurale et murus Chajil ex una parte, et murus occidentalis loci separati spatiumque

18

In the manuscript the word postest appears, doubtlessly by mistake.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

110

dred cubits inside the railing. Those one hundred cubits are sacred cu‑ bits, and, because Hecataeus, a male pagan who lived in Egypt, had re‑ ceived these measurements from the Jews in sacred cubits and hadn’t thought to convert them into Greek cubits, when he heard cubits he thought of the vulgar cubits and, to simplify the expression, wrote plethrons. Reinstate the cubits and the length of the stone peribolos will be three hundred and thirty‑three cubits and a third, or, in round num‑ bers, three hundred and thirty‑four, as was said above. The other argu‑ ment is that the altar should be in the middle of all the sacred area, as at another time it was in the middle of the great courtyard and the Jews would not have changed its place easily. The inner scared area should also be in the middle of the great courtyard, in its eastern and western limits it should be equally distant from the sides of that one.

[fol. 34] and, with its gates of Oblations, it must have looked directly towards the middle gates on the remaining sides. Any other situation would have been abnormal and improper. The altar was thus in the com‑ mon centre and it is maintained like so in our description. The altar is, on the one hand, in the middle of the inner courtyard which ends, on one side, in the vestibule of the Temple, and, on the other side, in the eastern portico; on the other hand it is in the middle of the entire inner sanctuary, at a distance of one hundred and sixty‑one cubits from the external Chajil wall on both sides, and finally, it is also in the middle of the great court‑ yard. The women’s courtyard cannot be augmented or reduced by one single cubit without ceasing to be concentric. As the space between the altar and the eastern portico, on one hand, and the space between the altar and the vestibule of the Temple, twenty‑two cubits wide on the outside, on the other hand, correspond mutually, thus the buildings between the inner courtyard and the women’s courtyard, on one side, and the vestibule of the Temple between the interior courtyard and the separate place, with an external width of twenty‑two cubits, on the other side, are mutually co‑ rresponding, likewise the women’s courtyard, on one side, and the sepa‑ rate place, which is eighty‑nine cubits wide, on the other side, are mutually corresponding. And likewise, the eastern wall of the women’s courtyard and the space between the walls and the Hayl wall, on one side, and the western wall of the separate place and the space between the walls and

111

The Temple of Solomon

intermurale et murus Chajil ex altera parte latitudinibus duorum, decem et sex cubitorum respective sibi mutuo respondent exacte. Unde liquet hallucinatos esse Talmudicos tribuendo atrio faeminarum 135 cubitos in quadrum. In mensura illa includendum est etiam atrium Israelis una cum loco incessus Sacerdotum et muro occidentali atrii faeminarum. Secus addendi erunt cubiti 46 versus orientem quos tamen una cum ulteriore regione septi cancellati atrium magnum non capiet. Sub aedificiis atrii superioris effosa erant putei balnea et cellaria diversa: ut sub porticibus ad aquilonem

[fol. 35] conclave salis in quo reponebant sal pro oblationibus. Conclave Hipparvae in quo sale condiebant pelles victimarum et Conclave lavantium ubi lavabant victimarum intestina. Haec erant cellaria eo quod tectum Hipparvae aequale describitur solo atrii et ex conclavi lavantium in tectum Hipparvae surgebat cochlea. Sed his et similibus missis videamus quibus usibus inservirent superiora. In exedra caesi lapidis sedebat Synedrium magnum. Stabat haec ad austrum in tribu Judah adeoque sita erat inter portam oblationis et portam aquarum. Nam linea per altaris latus orientale transiens linquebat omnia occidentem versus in tribu Benjamin. Unde cum altare staret in centro totius, adjudicabatur tribui Benjamin pars major sanctuarii. Summo Sacerdoti assignabantur mansiones duae una ad austrum altera ad aquilonem. Ad austrum domus Abtines quae alta describitur et supra porticum aquarum sita, id est supra alam occidentalem et ostium ejus, Sacerdotibus supra alam orientalem excubias agentibus. Ad aquilonem exedra Parhedrorum seu Assessorum quam inter alteram portam Oblationis et portam prominentiae e regione Synedrii constituerim. Namque exedra illa erat omnium dignissima. Dignius erat latus aquilonis et ibi locus dignior ad orientem.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

111

the Hayl wall, on the other side, with the widths of the two, ten and six cubits respectively, are exactly mutually corresponding. From there it ap‑ pears obvious that the experts in Talmud were mistaken when aributing one hundred and thirty‑five cubits squared to the women’s courtyard. In that measurement we must also include the courtyard of Israel together with the Priests’ passageway and together with the western wall of the women’s courtyard. Aerwards we must add forty‑six cubits towards the East, which, however, together with the opposite area of the fenced area, will not be included in the great courtyard. Under the buildings of the upper courtyard wells, baths and diffe‑ rent larders had been dug, like for example under the porticos which face North:

[fol. 35] the salt room, where they replaced the salt for the oblations; the Parvah room, where the skins of the victims were conserved in salt, and the room of the washing places, where the victims’ intestines were was‑ hed. These were the larders because the ceiling of Parvah corresponded with the floor of the courtyard and from the room of the washing places a stairs rose towards the ceiling of Parvah. But leaving aside these and other similar things, let us see what the upper rooms were used for. In the cut stone room the Great Sanhedrin sat. This room faced south in the tribe of Judah because it was situated between the gate of the Oblation and the Waters gate. Therefore, the line which passed down the eastern side of the altar le all the West‑facing part in the tribe of Benjamin; for this re‑ ason, as the altar was in the centre of everything, the majority of the sanctuary was aributed to the tribe of Benjamin. Two areas were assigned to the High Priest, one to the South, the other to the North. To the South the house of Abtines, which is descri‑ bed as elevated and situated on the portico of the waters, that is, on the west wing, and on the entrance to this [wing], making the Priests its guards on the east wing. To the North, the room of the Companions or Helpers, which I would put between the other gate of Oblation and the gate of Prominence facing the Sanhedrin. That room was, there‑ fore, the most dignified of all. The most dignified side was the North and there stood the most dignified place, towards the East.

112

The Temple of Solomon

Ad summum Sacerdotem refero Vicarium ejus et subvicarios. Dignitate proximi erant praefecti ministeriorum templi et altaris. His igitur cubicula dignitate proxima assignanda sunt: nimirum exedrae utrinque inter portas Oblationis et Incendii, una cum cubiculis aliquibus portarum versus orientem. Praefectus vestibus sacerdotalibus texendis et apparandis erat omnium infimus atque proprium erat huic in sanctuario conclave (Maimon. De Cultu Div. Tract. 2 cap. 7 sec. 20). Quanto magis praefectis reliquis? Restant ultimae quatuor exedrae inter viginti quatuor Principes Curiarum Sacerdotes aequaliter dividendae ita ut exedra unaquaeque duplici tabulato ac in eodem tabulato tribus cubiculis capiat sex Principes. Scribit Josephus exedras supra quam quadragenis cubitis celsas sustentatas fuisse binis columnis. Sit altitudo illa cubitorum 45 id est sacrorum 30 et exedra capiet cubicula satis amplia in duplici tabulato. Huic altitudini addenda est inferne altitudo columnarum quam possuerim sextuplam crassitudinis more Dorico id est 14 2/3 cub. et una

[fol. 36] cum basibus et capitellis 18 cub. circiter. Sic fiet altitudo tota quasi 48 cubitorum. Secundum latitudinem cubicula terna ternis intercolumniis respondebant. Inferioribus Sacerdotibus et Levitis restant portae quatuor ultimae. Namque alia loca non sunt ubi comedant sacrificia. Aequum est autem ut in harum distributione turmae omnes aequaliter participent. In singulis item porticibus gazophylacia terna totidem intercolumniis respondentia complent numerum totum gazophylaciorum viginti quatuor juxta numerum curiarum. In porta prima orientali ad reponendas sacerdotum vestes sacras erant (Maimon. De Cultu Div. lib.1, Tract. 2 c. 8) nonaginta et sex arcae quatuor videlicet pro unaquaque curia, et suis cujusque curiae arcis proprium erat nomen inscriptum. Sic et in alis vestibuli templi (vide notas Constantini L’Empereur in Middoth cap. 4 sec. 7) erant viginti quatuor cellulae ubi Sacerdotes totidem curiarum separatim

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

112

Next to the High Priest, I count his Vicar and subvicars. Near to these in dignity were the prefects of the ministries of the Temple and the altar. These, therefore, had to be assigned rooms which were si‑ milar in dignity: doubtlessly the rooms on either side which were between the gate of Oblation and the gate of Fire, as well as some rooms of the gates which faced to the East. The prefect in charge of making and preparing the priestly vestments was the one of least category of all and he had a room of his own in the sanctuary (Mai‑ mon. De Cultu Div. Tract. 2 chapter 7 section 20). How much more space was there for the remaining prefects? The last four rooms remain and these must be divided equally between the twenty‑four Chief Priests of the Curiae so that each two‑ storey room and of three rooms on each floor was for six Chiefs. Jo‑ sephus writes that the rooms, which were more than forty cubits high each, also lay on two columns each. If that height were forty‑ five cubits, that is, thirty sacred cubits, the room would span quite wide rooms on the double floor. To this height we must add, on the lower part, the height of the columns, which I would estimate at six times the thickness according to the Doric style, that is, fourteen cu‑ bits and two thirds, and

[fol. 36] adding the bases and the capital, eighteen cubits approxi‑ mately. Thus the entire height will be almost forty‑eight cubits. Along on the width, every three rooms would correspond to three bays. For the Priests of a lesser category and for the Levites the last four doors remain, as there are no other places where sacrifices can be consumed. It is fair that in the distribution of these everybody par‑ ticipates equally. Likewise, in each one of the porticos three rooms, corresponding to three bays, complete the total number of twenty‑ four rooms according to the number of the curiae. In the first eastern door there were ninety‑six chests to replace the priestly vestments (Maimon. De Cultu Div. lib. 1, Tract. 2 c. 8), obviously four for each one of the curiae, and the name of each curia was inscribed on its chests. Likewise in the wings of the vestibule of the Temple (see notes of Constantino L’Empereur in Middoth chapter 4 section 7) there were twenty‑four small cells where as many Priests of the cu‑

113

The Temple of Solomon

reponebant cultra sua sacra. Atque talis erat constitutio sacrarii interioris. Descendamus jam et exeamus per septum cancellatum in atrium gentium. Hujus latera singula Talmudici extrinsecus longa faciunt cubitis quingentis, Josephus inter angulos stadio uno id est cubitis quadringentis. Excessus debetur angulis cubitorum quinquaginta in quadrum. Hunc computum Josephus aliis in locis confirmat ponendo porticum regiam longam stadio uno et totum ambitum templi et Antoniae stadiorum sex. Antoniae ambitus cubitorum 600 satis bene quadrat cum descriptione ejus apud Josephum. Adde ambitum templi cubitorum 2000, summa fiet cubitorum 2600, e quibus 200 deficiunt ubi Antonia in angulum templi incurrit. Relinquitur ambitus cubitorum 2400 id est stadiorum sex. Portae longitudine cubitorum 50 respondere debent angulis et latitudine cubitorum 32 portis atrii interioris. Sic inter angulos cujusque porticus et portam quam Josephus in medio collocat relinquetur hinc inde longitudo cubitorum 184 in viginti intercolumnia distribuenda. Columnas in Regia porticu Josephus numerat 162, graece PΞB verius PΞH id est 168

[fol. 37] parva lierae ultimae mutatione. Nam numerus ille divisibilis esse debet per 8 eo quod columnarum sunt series octo aequales, quatuor hinc et quatuor inde. Stant igitur in una serie columnae 21 atque adeo inter columnia 20. Id quod sic confirmatur. De atrii latere occidentali intrinsecus cubitorum 400 aufer portas quatuor conjunctim cubitorum 128 et restabunt cubiti 272 conjuncta longitudo porticuum in quinque intervallis. Constituantur intervalla illa aequalia ut in lateribus atrii interioris et intervallum unum erit 54 2/5 cubitorum, capietque intercolumnia aut quinque aut sex aut septem, et ejusdem magnitudinis inter columnia porticus Regia

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

113

riae independently replaced their own sacred knives. Such was the structure of the inner sacred area. Let us descend then and leave by the place of the railing towards the courtyard of the gentiles. The experts in Talmud measure the length of each one of the sides of the courtyard on the outside as five hundred cubits; Josephus gives a stadion, that is, four hundred cubits, between the corners. The excess is due to corners of fiy cubits squared. Jose‑ phus confirms this calculation elsewhere assigning to the Regal portico a stadion in length, and to all the perimeter of the Temple and of An‑ tonia, six stadia. The perimeter of Antonia of six hundred cubits fits quite well with the description of Antonia given by Josephus. Add the perimeter of the Temple, two thousand cubits, and the total will be two thousand, six hundred cubits, two hundred of which are missing where Antonia coincides with the angle of the Temple. A perimeter of two thousand and four hundred cubits, that is, six stadia, remains. The gates, with their length of fiy cubits, should correspond with the angles; and with their width of thirty‑two cubits, with the doors of the inner courtyard. Thus, between the angles of each por‑ tico and the gate that Josephus places in the middle, to either side will remain a length of one hundred and eighty‑four cubits, which should be distributed in twenty bays. Josephus speaks of one hundred and sixty‑two columns in the Regal portico, in Greek PΞB, beer still PΞH, that is, one hundred and sixty‑eight

[fol. 37] due to a small change in the last two leers, as that num‑ ber should be divisible by eight because there are eight identical se‑ ries of columns, four on one side and four on the other. There are, therefore, twenty‑one columns and twenty bays in a series. This is confirmed thus: on the western side of the courtyard, four hundred cubits on the inner side, take away four doors of one hundred and twenty‑eight cubits in total and we will be le with two hundred and seventy‑two cubits as the total length of the porticos in five in‑ tervals. These intervals will be the same, like on the sides of the inner courtyard; an interval will be fiy‑four cubits and two fihs and it will occupy five, six or seven bays, and the Regal portico will occupy

114

The Temple of Solomon

capiet aut 17 aut 20 aut 24. Verum septemdecim juxta rationes architectonicas nimis rara erunt et 24 haud satis rara si modo columnae illis atrii alterius aequales constituantur, et utraque a numeris Josephi nimis recedunt, ergo viginti debent inseri. Hac ratione columnae paulo rariores erunt quam in ratione eustyli Vitruvii sed ideo magis gratae et hic ubi pro epistyliis adsunt ingentia marmora quae frangi nequeunt objectio Vitruvii locum non habet. Columnas autem hujus atrii aequarem illis alterius eo quod conjunctis trium hominum brachiis, ut author est Josephus, hoc est tribus orgyis seu duodecim cubitis gentilibus id est octo sacris cingebantur. Et hinc porticus etiam in atrio utroque quoad latitudinem aequales constituerim praeterquam quod porticus media quae reliquis duplo altior est sit etiam duplo latior inter bases columnarum. Sic latitudo basis erit 22 palm. ea deambulationis externae inter bases duplo major, ea deambulationis mediae quadruplo major, ea totius porticus triplicis cubitorum 44. Dimidium spatium columnarum extimarum occupet paries intertextus. Addatur murus extimus scamniformis quem Ezekiel sex cubitis longum et latum constituit, et complebitur latitudo 50 cubitorum congruenter dimensioni portae et anguli quibus porticus utrinque terminatur. Confirmatur porro calculus iste testimonio Josephi scribentis quod

[fol. 38] porticus duae externae pariles triginta pedum latitudinis claudant inter se mediam cujus latitudo sesquialtera. Triginta pedes romani sunt cubiti sacri 14 1/15 circiter ut ex sequentibus constabit. Triginta Attici si modo Atticus ut multi

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

114

seventeen, twenty or twenty‑four bays of the same size. But seven‑ teen, according to architectural proportions, will be too few, and twenty‑four too many if the columns are estimated to be the same as those of the other courtyard, and, in both cases, it is too far remo‑ ved from the numbers given by Josephus as it should say twenty. According to this proportion, the columns will be less numerous than in the proportion of the eustylos12 of Vitruvius, but more beau‑ tiful, and here, where instead of architraves there are great marbles which cannot be broken, the objection of Vitruvius has no place. I would count the columns of this courtyard as equal to those of the other courtyard in that they could be spanned by the arms of three men joined together, as Josephus says, that is, that they were three fa‑ thoms or twelve pagan cubits, the equivalent of eight sacred cubits, thick. And for this reason I would also suppose that the porticos in ei‑ ther courtyard were the same width, excepting the fact that the middle portico, which was twice as high as the others, would also be twice as wide in the space between the bases of the columns. Thus, the width of the base will be twenty‑two handbreadths, the width of the exterior space between the bases, double that; the width of the space in the middle, quadruple; that of the whole portico, triple, forty‑four cubits. Half the space of the external columns will be occupied by the adjacent wall. Add the wall which formed benches, which Ezekiel describes as six cubits long and wide, and we have the full width of fiy cubits, in accordance with the dimension of the gate and of the corner with which the portico ended on both sides. This calculation is, in turn, con‑ firmed by the testimony given by Josephus, who writes that

[fol. 38] two identical exterior porticos, thirty feet wide, encircled a central one whose width was sesquialtera. Thirty Roman feet are fourteen sacred cubits and a fieenth part approximately, as can be seen from the following facts. Thirty aic feet, if the aic foot is, as 12 Name of a type of temple whose colonnade has the best proportions, according to Vitruvius, from the aesthetic point of view as well as from the point of view of solidity. The length of its bays is equivalent to two and a quarter times the diameter of the columns, except the central bays of the front and back parts which measured three diameters.

115

The Temple of Solomon

volunt Romanum semuncia superet sunt 14 5/8 circiter. Suspicor magis Josephum expeditis computis consulentem pro pede usum esse mensura proxima Hebraica dimidii cubiti, qua ratione 30 pedes erunt 15 cubiti. Et congruenter huic mensurae latitudo externae porticus in descriptione nostra est 14 2/3 cubitorum inclusis columnis et ea porticus mediae inclusis itidem columnis est 22 cubitorum atque adeo sesquialtera prioris exacte. Auferatur jam porticus media et restabunt porticus duplices per reliqua tria atrii latera latae inter axes columnarum extimarum 22 cubitis, inter earum bases 18 1/3 cubitis et inter columnas 19 5/9 cubitis. Et rem ita se habere confirmat Josephus qui latitudinem porticus duplicis definit rotundo numero cubitorum suorum triginta id est viginti sacrorum. Tenemus igitur dimensiones porticuum secundum latitudinem. Ex angulis autem ascendant gradus ad superiora omnia, deque porticuum deambulationibus singulis pateant ostia in angulos, et his ex adverso19 respondeant ostia in lateribus portarum. Si jam altitudines addendae sunt. Longitudinem columnae ex integro lapide constantis Josephus scribit esse 25 cubitorum id est 16 2/3 cubitorum sacrorum et alibi 27 pedum id est 13 1/2 cubitorum sacrorum. Unde colligo longitudinem fuisse sextuplam crassitudinis more Dorico ut in atrio interiore, nimirum 14 1/3 cubitorum sacrorum, siquidem haec mensura in medio priorum cadat. Bases vero et capitella sculpta opere Corinthio complebunt longitudinem quasi 18 1/3 cubitorum id est duplam intervalli inter axes columnarum. Haec erat igitur altitudo usque ad epistylia. At porticus altitudinem internam Josephus ponit plusquam 50 pedum id est plusquam 25 cubitorum, sit ea

19

In the manuscript advero appears, doubtlessly by mistake.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

115

is widely estimated, slightly more than the Roman [foot], are four‑ teen and five eighths approximately. I suspect, rather, that Josephus, using simple calculations, used, rather than the foot, the nearest He‑ brew measurement, the half cubit; for this reason, thirty feet will be fieen cubits. And, according to this measurement, the width of the external portico in our description is fourteen cubits and two thirds, with the columns included, and the width of the central portico, with the columns also included, is twenty‑two cubits and, therefore, the exact sesquialtera of the former. Now take away the central portico and we will be le with the two double porticos on the three remaining sides of the courtyard with a width between the axes of the external columns of twenty‑ two cubits, between the bases of the columns of eighteen cubits and a third and between the columns, nineteen cubits and five ninths. And that this is so is confirmed by Josephus, who defines the width of the double portico with the round number of its thirty cubits, that is, twenty sacred cubits. Thus we have the dimensions of the porticos according to the width. From the corners stairs will ascend to the en‑ tire upper part, from each one of the passageways of the porticos en‑ trances will open towards the corners and, on the opposite side, entrances in the sides of the doors will correspond to these corners. If now we must add the heights: Josephus writes that the length of a column made of solid stone was twenty‑five cubits, that is, six‑ teen sacred cubits and two thirds, and elsewhere he speaks of twenty‑seven feet, that is, thirteen and a half sacred cubits. From this I deduce that the length was six times the thickness, according to the Doric style, as in the inner courtyard, that is, fourteen sacred cubits and a third, although this measurement is between the first two. The bases and the sculpted capitals in Corinthian style will complete the length of almost eighteen cubits and a third, that is, double the space between the axes of the columns. This was, thus, the height to the architraves. Furthermore, Josephus writes that the inner height of the portico was more than fiy feet, that is, more than twenty‑five cubits; if this was

116

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 39] 27 1/2 cubitorum hoc est sesquialtera altitudinis epistyliorum a fundo, et porticus mediae altitudo duplicata erit 55 cubitorum interne. Imponatur tabulatum duos cubitos crassum, et augustorum cubiculorum series quorum altitudo interna latitudinem quasi quindecim cubitorum aequet, atque tectum cubitis quinque ac podium sursum in circuitu tribus complebit altitudinem octoginta cubitorum. Et certe Josephus altitudinem hujus mediae porticus insignem fuisse describit. Judaei tecta domuum construebant plana, eo ut in ipsis ambulare liceret. Pateant igitur ostia de cubiculis hisce in tecta eorum quae ad latera supra porticus duas externas construebantur, et altitudo tectorum illorum tabulato seu solo mediorum aequata definietur cubitis quinquaginta septem. Adde podium trium cubitorum altitudinis per circuitum et altitudo tota erit sexaginta cubitorum. Eandem fuisse altitudinem reliquarum porticuum per atrii circuitum concipe, eo quod omnium facies anteriores sibi mutuo conformes esse debebant. Tandem ut a Templo descripto pergamus ad Templum Solomonis, rejicienda sunt omnia quae Zerubbabel et Herodes addidere quaeve irregularia sunt, ut atrium faeminarum portaeque prominentiae et aquarum in illud ducentes et respondentes portae ex altera parte altaris, quibus utique nullae respondent in atrio magno, portae item quatuor cum porticu duplici in latere occidentali atrii magni quibus nihil respondet in atrio interiore. Sic manebunt portae tres in atrio interiore totidemque his respondentes in atrio exteriore, quorum omnium in medio stet

[fol. 40] altare. Vice dirutarum portarum ubi Sacerdotes comedebant sacrificia, aedificentur in loco separato cubicula huic usui idonea. Et cum Herodes et Judaei in excessu peccare amarent, uti augendo internam altitudinem templi latitudinemque Vestibuli, Altaris et portarum et substituendo in atrii magni latere australi porticum triplicem pro duplici corrigantur excessus illi et muri duo Chajil et Soreg cum gradibus superfluis deleantur:

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

116

[fol. 39] twenty‑seven and a half cubits, that is, the sesquialtera of the height of the architraves from the floor, the doubled height of the central portico would be fiy‑five cubits on the inside. Add the floor, two cubits thick, the series of sacred rooms, the inner height of which was the same as the width of almost fieen cubits, the cei‑ ling of five cubits, and the circular podium above will complete, with three, the height of eighty cubits. In effect, Josephus writes that the height of this central portico was very noteworthy. The Jews built the roofs of houses flat so that one could walk on them. If, then, entrances are opened from these rooms towards the roof of those which were to the sides on the two porticos outside, the height of the roofs of those rooms levelled with the floor or the pavement of those in the middle, would be fixed at fiy‑seven cubits. Add the circular podium of three cubits high and the total height will be sixty cubits. Imagine that this same height was the height of the remaining porticos in the extension of the courtyard, because the front facades of all of them should correspond mutually. Finally, in order to advance from the Temple described to the Tem‑ ple of Solomon, we must do away with all that Zerubbabel and Herod added, or the irregular parts such as the women’s courtyard and the gates of Prominence and of Waters which lead to it and which corres‑ pond to the gates on the other side of the altar, but with which no other gate in the great courtyard corresponds. Likewise the four gates with the double portico on the western side of the great courtyard with which nothing in the inner courtyard corresponds. Thus there will be in all three gates in the inner courtyard which correspond with those in the outer courtyard, and in the middle of all this will be the altar.

[fol. 40] Instead of the gates which had been destroyed, where the Priests consumed the sacrifices, rooms which would be suitable for this use would be built in a separate place. And given that Herod and the Jews liked to exaggerate, as if to increase the inner height of the Temple and the width of the vestibule, the altar and the gates, and to put a triple, rather than a double, portico on the south side of the great courtyard, these defects would be corrected and the two walls, Hayl and Sorej, with their superfluous stairs, would disappear; as these,

The Temple of Solomon

117

quippe quos Zerubbabel (quantum sentio) in limites sanctuarii sui primum condidit, quique atrium magnum populo numerosissimo dicatum inutiliter inminuunt et impediunt. Portae autem producantur introrsum usque ad loricam cubitalem. Et quoniam templum cum thalamis suis olim septuaginta cubitos latum erat (Ezek. 41, 12) Cyrus autem diminuit latitudinem decem cubitis (Ezra 6, 3) exclusa nimirum deambulatione lata quinque cubitis inter thalamos et ejus loco constructis ostiis in mediis thalamorum parietibus per quae via produceretur; Judaei vero latitudinem antiquam septuaginta cubitorum complebant addito hinc et inde muro quodam qui pluviam cohiberet: deleatur murus ille et restituatur antiqua thalamorum latitudo deambulatione seu paradromide inserta quae dividat majores thalamos in binos minores utrinque ut eorum latitudo melius respondeat altitudini quinque cubitorum (1 Reg. 6, 10). Et simili proportione minuatur singulorum longitudo ut in singulis per circuitum seriebus sint triginta. Tot enim Josephus (Antiq. l. 8 c. 2) in templo Solomonis numerat. Et hisce omnibus sic correctis licebit tandem in hoc templo speculari illud Ezekielis cujus verba schematis et interpolationibus illustrata jam damus ut sequitur.

[fol. 41]20

[fol. 42]21

[fol. 43] Cap. 40,1. In vigesimo quinto anno transmigrationis nostrae, in exordio anni, decima mensis, quatuordecimo anno postquam percussa est civitas, in ipsa hac die, facta est super me manus domini et adduxit me illuc.

20 21

This page is completely crossed out. This page contains two plans.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

117

which, I believe, were put there by Zerubbabel at the beginning as a limit to his sanctuary, diminish and cause an obstacle in the great courtyard, which is used by a very numerous people. The gates would lead towards the inside, to the cubit‑high railing. And, given that the Temple with its chambers measured at another time seventy cubits wide (Ezek. 41: 12), Cyrus reduced its width by ten cubits (Ezra 6: 3) excluding, no doubt, the passageway of five cubits in width which was between the chambers and placing instead doors in the dividing walls of the chambers through which one could pass; but the Jews completed the ancient measurement of seventy cubits adding a wall at either side to protect from the rain; do away with that wall and replace the former width of the chambers; including the passageway or corridor which divided the bigger chambers in groups of two smaller ones, on either side, so that the width of these respon‑ ded beer to the height of five cubits (1 Kings 6: 10). Reduce the length of each one in a similar proportion so that there are thirty in total in each series, as this many were enumerated by Josephus (Antiq. l. 8 c. 2) in the Temple of Solomon. Once all this has been corrected so, we can, in this Temple, finally imagine what Ezekiel says, whose words, illustrated with plans and interpolations, we offer as follows.

[fol. 41]13

[fol. 42]14

[fol. 43] Chapter 40: 1. In the twentyfih year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth of the month, in the fourteenth year aer the fall of the city, on that very day the hand of the Lord was upon me and led me there.

13 14

This page is completely crossed out. This page contains two plans.

The Temple of Solomon

118

2 In visionibus Dei adduxit me in terram Israel et dimisit me super montem valde excelsum: super quem erat [aedificium templi cum atriis suis apparens] quasi aedificium civitatis ae regione. 3 Et adduxit me illuc et ecce vir cujus erat species quasi species aeris et funiculus lineus [erat] in manu ejus et calamus mensurae et stabat in porta. 4 Et locutus est ad me [idem] vir, fili hominis, vide oculis tuis et auribus tuis audi et pone cor tuum in omnia quae ego ostendam tibi, quia ut ostendantur tibi adductus es huc, annunciare omnia quae tu vides domui Israel. 5 Et ecce murus nstc forinsecus in circuitu domus undique et in manu viri calamus mensurae bsex cubitorum [magnorum singulatim constantium] cubito [minori] et palmo. Et mensus est aedificii latitudinem 2022 λμ calamo uno et altitudinem calamo uno. [fol. 44] 6 Et venit ad portam quae respiciebat ad orientem et ascendit per c[septem] gradus ejus et mensus est limen portae calamo uno latitudine BC.d a

In Hebr. jam vulgato est bgnm ad Austrum at Septuaginta et Aquila (apud Hier.) olim legebant dgnm e regione. b unanimis est Judaeorum traditio cubitum vulgarem constitisse ex quinque pal‑ mis sacrum ex sex. Utitur itaque Angelus calamo sex cubitorum sacrorum. [fol. 44] Hieronymus corrupto usus exemplari legebat calamum fuisse sex cubitorum et palmi eumque latini fere sequuntur. In Hebraeo est calamum fuisse sex cubitorum in cubito et palmo, et ita legebat Jonathan. Ita etiam proculdubio legebant Septuag‑ inta quamvis jam olim in ipsis perturbato sensu scribatur palaishªj pro palaisvª. Sed et Ezekiel alibi expresse dicit cubitos suos constitisse ex cubito et palmo c. 43, 13 et calamum fuisse sex cubitorum praecise cap. 41, 8 et thalamos unius arundinis c. 40, 7 fuisse sex cubitorum praecise vers. 12. Et totam portae latitudinem quae ex duobus calamis duorum thalamorum et latitudine interjecta tridecim cubitorum conflatur fuisse cubitorum viginti quinque et totam portae longitudinem quae ex tribus calamis trium thalamorum et duobus calamis duorum porticum et bis quinque cubitis inter thalamos et decem cubitis vestibuli et postis ejus confit sum‑ matim fuisse cubitorum quinquaginta. c Numerus septem legitur in Septuaginta versione et occurrit in sequentibus, (22. 26). d In Hebr. jam additur et limen unum calamo uno in latitudinem: quae verba deerant in exemplari Septuaginta Virorum et repetitio sunt verborum proxime praecedentium totidem syllabis praeterquam quod pro r(#h porta. Per ulteriorem scribae errorem ponitur dx) unum.

22

Cf. page 42 right of the facsimile.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

118

2 In the visions of God he brought me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city [the building of the Temple and its courtyards were visible]a in front. 3 And he brought me thither, and, behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze; in his hand [there was] a line of flax and a measuring reed; and he stood at the gate. 4 And he said to me, “Son of man, look with your eyes, and listen with your ears. Pay close aention to everything I’m going to show you. You were brought here to be shown these things. Tell the nation of Israel everything that you see.” 5 And behold a wall on the outside of the house nstc round about, and in the man’s hand a measuring reedb of six cubits [each one being big and of a constant size] long by a[lesser] cubit and a handbreadth: so he measured the breadth of the building15 λμ, with one reed; and the height, with one reed. [fol. 44] 6 Then he went to the gate facing East. He climbed its steps and measured the threshold of the gate; it was one reed wide BCd. c[seven]

a In the Hebrew text which has already been popularized we find bgnm to the South but in Septuagint and Aquila (according to Jerome) in ancient times it was read dgnm in front. b Unanimity exists on the tradition of the Jews that a common cubit was formed by five handbreadths and the sacred cubit, by six. Thus the Angel uses the reed of six sacred cubits. [p. 44] Jerome read, in an example which was corrupted by use, that the reed was of six cubits and a handbreadth, and the Latins generally follow him. In the Hebrew text it is written that the reed was six cubits and a handbreadth and thus it is read by Jonathan. Thus, no doubt, read Septuagint, although already since ancient times there it was written with the meaning changed palaishªj instead of palaisvª. But also Ezekiel, elsewhere, expressly says that his cubits are a cubit and a handbreadth (43: 13), that the reed was six cubits exactly (41: 8) and the chambers of a reed (40: 7) were exactly six cubits (verse 12). And all the width of the door which is formed with the two reeds of the two cham‑ bers and with the intermediate width of thirteen cubits was twenty‑five cubits and all the length of the door which was formed with the three reeds of the three chambers, with the two reeds of the two porticos, with the five cubits twice between the chambers, the ten cubits of the vestibule and the jambs of this [vestibule] was in total fifty cubits. c The number seven can be read in the version of Septuagint and appears in the following verses (22 and 26). d The Hebrew text already adds: And a threshold of a reed in width; these words are missing in the example of the seventy men and they are the repetition of the words immediately preceding them with the same number of syllables and, except that instead of r(#h gate, due to a subsequent error by a scribe dx) one is written.

15

Cf. page 42 right of the facsimile.

119

The Temple of Solomon

7 Et thalamum [janitoribus destinatum] calamo uno in longum DE et calamo uno in latum EV et [spatium seu evestibulum] inter thalamos [ducens in porticum] quinque cubitis EF [eet thalamum secundum calamo uno in latum TF et calamo uno in longum FG et vestibulum cubitis quinque GH et thalamum tertium calamo uno in longum HJ et calamo uno in latum HQ]. 8 Et limen portae juxta vestibulum portae fintrinsecus calamo uno KL. 9 Et mensus est vestibulum portae octo cubitis MN et postes ejus duobus cubitis OP. Et vestibulum portae erat gintrinsecus, [seu versus atrium]. 10 Et thalami erant ad orientem [seu extrinsecus] tres hinc et tres inde, mensura una trium et mensura una postium hinc et inde. 11 [Hactenus Angelus progrediendo mensus est singula secundum longitudinem, jam revertitur ut metiatur latitudines]. Et mensus est latitudinem ostii portae decem cubitis Cc et hlatitudinem portae tredecim cubitis Dd.

e

Ita Septuaginta. Et postea vers. 30 de his vestibulis agitur, tamquam prius memo‑ ratis. Porro vacua fuisse more porticuum illa cubiculorum intervalla EVTF, GSRH et manifestum est tum quia angelus in [fol. 45] his constitit ubi mensus est latitudinem thalamorum EV, FT et latitudinem portae Vv, tum quia Sacerdotes per haec intervalla portarum atrii interioris transeunt de exedris suis in atrium interius redeuntque inde in exedras et interea non eunt in atrium exterius cap. 42, 14 et Ezekiel per introitum in latere portae borealis ingressus est cubicula sacerdotum cap. 46, 19. f Hic in Hebraeo scriba oscilanter bis descripsit verba, intrinsecus calamo uno et mensus est vestibulum portae, idque totidem syllabis. In exemplaribus Hieronymi et interpretis Syri legebantur semel. In versione Septuaginta juxta editionem Romanam per contrariam scribae oscilantiam prorsus ommittuntur sed in codice Alexandrino et versione Arabica leguntur semel. g Hic describitur situs vestibuli et thalamorum ad invicem contrarius illi qui pos‑ tea vers. 31 describitur in portis atrii interioris. h Latitudo hic olim legebatur in versione Septuaginta, teste Hieronymo. Putabat tamen ille lectionem istam minus recte se habere. Neque enim, ait, in uno loco lati‑ tudinem et rursum latitudinem decem et tridecim cubitorum scriptura dixisset. Alii idem cogitantes locum temere correxerunt ita ut jam pro latitudine posteriori legatur lon‑ gitudo tam in Versione Septuaginta quam in textu Hebr. Sed latitudinem legi debere res ipsa suadet siquidem latitudo interna portae fuerit tridecim [fol. 46] cubitorum (ut pateat subducendo thalamorum duorum latitudines de latitudine tota Vv cu‑ bitorum 25) et mensura latitudinis illius internae non alibi exprimatur.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

119

7 The chamber [for the guards of the doors] was one reed long DE and one reed wide EV [the space or eVestibule], between the chambers [which led to the portico] was five cubits wide EF, [eand the second chamber one reed wide TF by one reed long FG, the vestibule, five cubits GH and the third chamber one reed long HJ and one reed wide HQ]. 8 He measured the threshold of the door next to the vestibule of the door fwithin, one reed KL. 9 And he measured the vestibule of the gate, eight cubits MN and its jambs, two cubits OP. And the vestibule of the gate was that which was gon the inside, [or towards the courtyard]. 10 There were three chambers to the East [or outwards] at one side and three at the other side, the measurement of the three was the same, as was the measurement of the jambs on either side. 11 [Up to this point the Angel, advancing, measured the length of each thing, aerwards he returned to measure the width] And he measured the width of the entrance to the gate; it was ten cubits Cc and hthe width of the gate was thirteen cubits Dd. e Likewise Septuagint. And after verse 30 these vestibules are spoken about as if they had been mentioned before. It is also clear that those spaces between the rooms EVTF, GSRH were empty by way of porticos, firstly, because the angel stopped there [page 45] when he measured the width of the chambers EV, FT and the width of the door Vv, also, because the Priests passed through these spaces between the gates of the inner courtyard from their rooms towards the inner courtyard, they went back from there towards their rooms and meanwhile they did not pass to the outer court‑ yard (42: 14) and moreover Ezekiel penetrated through the entrance on the side of the northern gate towards the rooms of the Priests (46: 19). f Here in the Hebrew text the scribe, by mistake, wrote the following words twice: Within with a reed and he measured the vestibule of the gate, because they had the same syllables. In the examples of Jerome and in the authors of the Syriac version they were read just once. In the version of Septuagint until the Roman edition they are completely omitted due to the contrary error of a scribe, but in the Alexandrian codex and in the Arab version they can be read just once. g Here the place of the vestibule and the chambers is described as contrary to that which after (verse 31) is described in the gates of the inner courtyard. h In ancient times here one read width in the version of Septuagint, as Jerome bore witness. But he thought that reading should be taken as less correct. As he says, that the Scripture would not have said in the same place that the width was ten and thirteen cu‑ bits. Others, of the same opinion, recklessly corrected the place so that, instead of width, it later read length, both in the Septuagint version and in the Hebrew text. But the matter itself convinces me that me must read width, given that the internal width of the door was thirteen [page 46] cubits (as would appear obvious by subtracting the width of the two chambers from the total width Vv, twenty‑five cubits) and the measurement of its internal width is not expressed anywhere else.

120

The Temple of Solomon

12 Et marginem [seu gradum] ante thalamos cubiti unius [hinc] et cubiti unius marginem inde [plano pavimenti porticuum eo usque producto]. Et thalamus erat sex cubitorum hinc EV et sex cubitorum inde ev.

[fol. 45] 13 Et mensus est portam a tecto thalami [extrinsecus] ad tectum ejus [extrinsecus] latitudinem viginti quinque cubitis Vv, ostium VT contra ostium vt. 14 Et fecit [ostiis] postes [BC, bc, KL, kl altitudine] kviginti cubitorum et ad lpostes atrii [TS, PQ, pq, ts] erant portae undique per circuitum VT, SR, Pp, rs, tv. 15 Et a facie portae introitus Bb usque ad faciem vestibuli portae interioris Pp quinquaginta cubiti. 16 Et erant fenestrae [cancellis] clausae in thalamis et in postibus eorum EV, FT, GS, etc. intra portam undique. Similiter autem erant et in vestibulis MN, nm fenestrae per gyrum intrinsecus, et supra postes PQ, pq palmae [una hinc et una inde, ut in versu 26 exprimitur]. 17 Et eduxit me ad atrium exterius, et ecce cubicula et mpavimentum columnatum factum in atrio per circuitum: triginta

k Ubi jam legitur My## sexaginta, Septuaginta legebant Myr#( viginti. Et recte. Nam Jonathan et Syrus hic intelligunt altitudinem frontium seu postium portae. Et certe altitudo illa alicubi exprimenda erat et alibi non exprimitur. Erat autem lati‑ tudo ostii decem cubitorum et altitudo juxta regulas architectorum debet esse dupla latitudinis. Sic etiam portae templi hujus cum portis templi secundi quadrabunt magnitudine. l Hebr. Ad postem atrii porta posito numero singulari pro plurali. Sic ad postem v. 16, et ad humerum v. 18, pro ad postes et ad humeros. Portae vero hic pro portarum ostiis patentibus VT, SR, Pp et ponuntur, perinde ut in versu sequente. m Pcr pavimentum lapide stratum significat (2 Paralip. 7, 3) et prunas Is. 6. 6; 1 Reg. 19, 6). Et inde a specie fornacis usurpatur pro area loci fornicati. Sic in Cant. 3, 10 des‑ cribendo lectum Solomonis dicuntur columnae ejus argenteae, pluteus aureus, tec‑ tum purpureum et medium hbh) Pwcr area sustrata seu intercolumnium vel porticus amoris. Sic etiam in Esther 1, 5. 6 ubi describitur atrium regium columnis marmoreis ornatum, pavimentum columnatum ubi lecta convivis strata erant, dicitur hpcr. Et sic in hoc loco Ezek. Septuaginta vertun hpcr peri/stula, quod eorum interpres latinus apud Hieronymum reddit intercolumnium Hieronymus pavimentum inter co‑ lumnas nos columnatum seu locum columnis obsitum. Et hanc interpretationem con‑ firmat Ezek. ipse (42, 6), de columnis atriorum verba faciens.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

120

12 And there was a space [or step] in front of the chambers of a cubit [on one side] and a space of a cubit on the other side [extending to this point the level surface of the pavement of the porticos]. And the chamber was six cubits on one side EV and six on the other ev.

[fol. 45] 13 And he measured the gate from the roof of the cham‑ ber [on the outside] to its roof [on the outside], twenty‑five cubits Vv wide, from entrance VT to entrance vt. 14 And he made [in the entrances] the jambs [BC, bc, KL, kl of one height] kof twenty cubits and next to lthe jambs of the courtyard [TS, PQ, pq, ts] there were gates all round on all sides VT, SR, Pp, rs, tv. 15 And from the leaf of the entrance gate Bb to the leaf of the ves‑ tibule of the inner gate Pp was fiy cubits. 16 And there were closed windows [with railings] in the chambers and the buresses of these chambers EV, FT, GS, etc. within the gate and all around. And there were windows in the vestibules MN, nm inside all around and on the jambs PQ, pq there were palm trees [one on one side and another on the other side as it is said in verse 26]. 17 He led me towards the outer courtyard and here there were rooms and ma pavement with columns built all around the court‑ k Where now we read My## sixty, Septuagint read Myr#( twenty correctly. Jonathan and the Syriac version understand here the height of the façades or the jambs of the door. And no doubt that height should be expressed somewhere but it is not. But the width of the entrance was ten cubits and the height, according to ar‑ chitects’ rules, should be double the width. Therefore, also, the gates of this Temple would match the size of the gates of the second Temple. l In the Hebrew text: gate next to the jamb of the courtyard, in singular rather than in plural. Likewise next to the jamb (v. 16) and next to the ledge (v. 18) instead of next to the jambs and next to the ledges. But here also we have gate instead of the open en‑ trances of the gates VT, SR, Pp, as occurs in the following verse. m Pcr means pavement covered in stones (2 Chr. 7: 3) and burning coals (Isa. 6:6 and 1 Kings. 19: 6). And from there, from a sort of oven, it came to mean surface of the place where the oven is found. Thus Songs 3:10 when describing Solomon’s bed speaks of columns of silver, a headboard of gold, its upper part purple and the central part hbh) Pwcr a covered space or bay or portico of love. Likewise in Esth. 1: 5‑6 when de‑ scribing the royal courtyard adorned with marble columns, the pavement with columns where the beds for the banquets are found is called hpcr. And likewise in this passage of Ezek., Septuagint translates hpcr peri/stula, which the Latin translator, according to Jerome, translates as bay, Jerome as pavement between columns, ourselves as columned area or place full of columns. This interpretation is also confirmed by Ezek. (42: 6) himself, when speaking of the columns of the courtyards.

121

The Temple of Solomon

cubicula in pavimento columnato [in singulis atrii lateribus decem, quinque ex uno latere portae et quinque ex altero, praeterquam in latere occidentali nondum viso]. 18 Et pavimentum columnatum erat ad humeros portarum XQ, xq. E regione longitudinis portarum erat pavimentum columnatum inferius, [constituto superiore in atrio altero]. 19 Et mensus est latitudinem a facie portae inferioris ad faciem atrii interioris extrinsecus centum cubitos ad orientem.

[fol. 46] 20 Et nadduxit me ad Aquilonem, et porta erat quae respiciebat ad Aquilonem in atrio exteriore. Mensus est longitudinem ejus et latitudinem ejus,

n Ita legebant Septuaginta. In Hebr. jam est tantum et ad aquilonem: quae verba Villal‑ pandus ad precedentem sententiam referens finxit Angelum mensurare tam longi‑ tudinem atrii ab austro ad aquilonem quam latitudinem inter portas utramque 100 cubitorum [fol. 47] et inde mirabile quid excogitavit, atrium totum in novem atriola di‑ visum esse singula 100 cubitos longa lataque et aedificiis 50 cubitos latis ab invicem discreta. Verum ex versu 23 et 27 ubi similes mensurae repetuntur, constat Angelum solam inter portas distantiam mensurasse et verba illa et ad aquilonem ad comma se‑ quens pertinere. Porro dicit Propheta se quamprimum eductus est ex porta orientali in atrium exterius vidisse cubicula triginta supra pavimentum columnatum in atrio per circuitum. Si per atrium exterius hic intelligis cum Villalpando atriolum aliquod, nu‑ meranda essent septem atria exteriora, cum tamen Angelus ubique ponat unicum tan‑ tum. Et praeterea in atrioli circuitu deberent esse 30 cubicula: quod Villalpandus ipse agnoscit impossibile esse nisi caenacula portarum adnumerentur cubiculi; contra verba expressa Prophetae qui pavimentum cum omnibus suis triginta cubiculis ad humeros portarum et e regione longitudinis portarum collocat. Quod si igitur per atrium exterius hic non intelligamus atriolum aliquod sed atrium magnum et in ejus circuitu colloce‑ mus pavimentum columnatum cum cubiculis (sic enim collocabantur in templo se‑ cundo) amovenda erunt omnia atriolorum obstacula ut Propheta quamprimum e porta in atrium eductus fuit cubicula undique videret et enumeraret. Sed quid disputo contra opinionem quae non nisi in verbis et ad aquilonem durissime expositis fundatur. Si tot fuissent atriola nonne Angelus ea pluribus prosecutus fuisset? Nonne etiam verbis cla‑ rioribus? Certe verba illa cum Villalpando interpretari non possumus nisi interpolatis aliquibus sensum expleamus hoc modo. Et [latitudinem atrii ab austro] ad aquilonem. Et cur non aeque expleamus eadem sic, et [adduxit me] ad aquilonem? praesertim cum Septuaginta ita olim legerint. Et quamvis verba adduxit me jam desint in [fol. 48] Textu

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

121

yard: thirty rooms in the pavement with columns [ten on each side of the courtyard, five at one side of the gate and five at the other, ex‑ cept on the western side which had not yet been seen]. 18 And the pavement with columns was next to the ledges of the doors XQ, xq. Facing the length of the doors was the lower pavement with columns [which was over the other courtyard]. 19 Aer he measured the width from the leaf of the gate below to the façade of the inner courtyard on the outside: one hundred cu‑ bits towards the East.

[fol. 46] 20 He nled me towards the Achillon and the gate was that which looked toward Achillon in the outer courtyard. He mea‑ sured its length and width,

n Thus read Septuagint. In the Hebrew text only and towards the North figures. Villal‑ pando, when referring these words to the preceding sentence, imagined that the Angel measured both the length of the courtyard from the South to the North and the width between the gates (one hundred cubits in each case), [page 47] and from there, incred‑ ibly, he thought that all the courtyard was divided into nine small courtyards, each one of which was one hundred cubits long and wide and was successively separated by constructions of fifty cubits wide. But, because of verses 23 and 27, where similar measurements are repeated, we can see that the Angel had only measured between the gates and that those words and towards the North belonged to the next sentence. As the prophet says that when he was taken from the east door towards the outer courtyard, he saw thirty rooms on the pavement with columns all around the sides of the courtyard. If by the outer courtyard you understand here, with Villapando, a small courtyard, seven outer courtyards should have been enumerated, despite the fact that the Angel only puts one. And furthermore, around the small courtyard there should have been thirty rooms, which Villalpando himself recognises as impossible unless the spaces of the doors were enumerated as rooms; against this we have the express words of the Prophet who locates the pavement with its thirty rooms next to the ledges of the gates and facing the length of the gates. Because, if, by outer courtyard we did not understand here a small courtyard but rather the big courtyard and around it we situated the pavement of columns with its rooms (as this is how they were situated in the second Temple), we would have to remove all the obstacles from the small court‑ yards so that the Prophet could see and count the rooms when he was led from the gate to the courtyard. But, why do I argue against an opinion which was formed only on the misinterpreted words and towards the North? If there were so many small court‑ yards, would the Angel not have spoken of them elsewhere? Would he not have spo‑ ken more clearly? We cannot of course, interpret those words like Villalpando unless we extend their meaning interpolating some words such as: And [the width of the courtyard from the South] to the North. And why not extend it likewise thus: And [he led me] towards the North?, especially as this is how Septuagint used to read. And al‑ though the words he led me were already missing in the Hebrew text, [page 48] they

122

The Temple of Solomon

21 et thalamos ejus tres hinc et tres inde et postes ejus et vestibulum ejus, et fuit secundum mensuram portae primae. Quinquaginta cubitorum longitudo ejus et latitudo quinque et viginti cubitorum. Et fenestrae ejus et vestibulum ejus et palmae ejus secundum mensuram portae quae respiciebat ad orientem. 22 Et per gradus septem ascendunt in eam et vestibulum ejus erat ante eos [id est interius]. 23 Et [erat] porta atrii interioris contra [hanc] portam aquilonis, osicut in portis ad orientem. Et mensus est a porta ad portam centum cubitos.

[fol. 47] 24 Et adduxit me ad austrum et ecce porta respiciens ad austrum et mensus est pthalamos ejus et postes ejus et vestibulum ejus juxta mensuras superiores. 25 Et fenestrae erant ei et vestibulo ejus in circuitu sicut fenestrae istae. Quinquaginta cubitorum [erat] longitudo [ejus] et latitudo quinque et viginti cubitorum. 26 Et gradus septem erant gradus ejus et vestibulum ejus ante eos, et palmae ei una hinc et una inde in poste ejus. 27 Et [e regione erat] porta atrii interioris respiciens ad austrum. Et mensus est a porta [atrii exterioris] ad portam [illam] australem centum cubitos.

Heb., tamen ex locis analogis v: 24, 27, 32, 35, 48 etc. suppleri possunt et debent. Namque Angelus hic transit cum Propheta de porta ad portam et quoties fit talis tran‑ situs, dicitur, adduxit me. Quod si textui hodierno Hebraico mordicus adhaerendum esse putes perinde est. Nam textus ille sine verbis adduxit me sic vertetur Et ad aquilonem erat etiam porta quae respiciebat viam aquilonis in atrio exteriore etc. vel sic omisso secundo w tanquam redundante, Et ad aquilonem erat porta quae etc. Tantum abest ut durissimam illam nullisque fultam rationibus expositionem Villalpandi sequamur. Imo vero hanc sequi non possumus nisi forte in dimensionibus atrii templum et altare proxime cin‑ gentis recedere velimus a proportione Mosaica et longitudinem plusquam duplam la‑ titudinis cum Villalpando constituere. o Pro w et, Septuaginta hic legebant k sicut. p Ita legebant Septuaginta. Et ita legitur v. 21, 29, 33, 36.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

122

21 its three chambers on one side and the three on the other, its jambs and its vestibule and it was according to the measurement of the first gate. Its length was fiy cubits and its width twenty‑five cu‑ bits. Its windows, its vestibule and its palm trees were according to the measurement of the gate which looked East. 22 Seven steps go up to it and its vestibule was opposite them [that is, towards the inside]. 23 And the gate of the inner courtyard [was] opposite to [this] North gate, oas in the gates of the East. And he measured from gate to gate one hundred cubits.

[fol. 47] 24 He led me towards the South and here was a gate which looked southwards, and he measured pits chambers, its jambs and its vestibule according to the measurements above. 25 This had windows and its vestibule had them all around like those windows. [Its] length [was] fiy cubits and its width twenty‑ five cubits. 26 Its steps were seven in number and its vestibule was in front of these steps and it had palm trees, one on one side and one on the other, on its jambs. 27 And [opposite was] the gate of the inner courtyard which loo‑ ked to the South. And he measured one hundred cubits from the gate [of the outer courtyard] to [that] South door.

could and should, however, be substituted from other analogous places (cf. 24, 27, 32, 35, 48, etc.). As the Angel passes here from door to door with the Prophet and each time he does so he says: he led me. The same occurs if you think, obstinately, that you must follow today’s Hebrew text, as this text without the words he led me would trans‑ late thus: And towards the North also was the door which looked towards the direction of the North in the outer courtyard, etc., or, omitting the second one w as redundant: and towards the North was the door which, etc. To such point it is not a good idea to follow that expo‑ sition by Villalpando, as mistaken and lacking in reasons as it is. And likewise we can‑ not follow it unless we wish to move away from the mosaic proportion in the dimensions of the courtyard immediately surrounding the Temple and the altar es‑ tablishing, with Villalpando, a length which is more than double the width. o Instead of w and, Septuagint read here k like. p Thus read Septuagint and thus it is read in verses 21, 29, 33, 36.

123

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 48] 28 Et introduxit me in atrium interius in portam austri et mensus est portam austri secundum mensuras easdem. 29 Et thalamos ejus et postes ejus et vestibulum ejus. Et fenestrae erant ei et vestibulis ejus undique. Quinquaginta cubitorum longitudo ejus et latitudo viginti quinque cubitorum. q30 Et vestibula circum circa VvtT et SsrR longitudinis viginti quinque cubitorum et latitudinis quinque cubitorum. 31 Et vestibulum ejus erat versus atrium exterius, et palmae erant in postibus ejus. Et gradus octo erant gradus ejus. 32 Et introduxit me in ratrium interius versus Orientem et mensus est portam [orientalem] secundum mensuras easdem 33 et thalamos ejus et postes ejus et vestibulum ejus secundum mensuras istas. Et fenestrae erant ei et vestibuli ejus undique. Longitudo [ejus] quinquaginta cubitorum et latitudo quinque et viginti cubitorum. 34 Et vestibulum ejus erat versus atrium exterius et palmae erant in postibus ejus hinc et inde.

[fol. 49] 35 Et introduxit me in portam aquilonis et mensus est [eam] 36 secundum mensuras superiores, thalamos ejus et postes ejus et vestibulum ejus, et fenestrae erant sei et vestibulis ejus circum circa. Longitudo ejus quinquaginta cubitorum et latitudo quinque et viginti cubitorum. 37 Et tvestibulum ejus erat versus atrium exterius et palmae erant in postibus ejus hinc et inde. Et octo gradus erant gradus ejus. 38 Et cubiculum [erat vestibulo utrinque fenestris supra descriptis illuminatum] Z, z, et ostium ejus Y, y erat in postibus portarum KL, kl. Ibi lavabunt holocaustum. q

Versus 30 deest in Septuaginta edit. Rom., legitur tamen in edit. Aldina et MS Alexandr. et versione Arabica, consentientibus textu Hebr. cum versionibus ejus Syr. et Chald. r Septuaginta legunt portam loco atrii idque rectius, cum Propheta jam ante ad atrium interius adductum fuit. s Ita Septuaginta et latinus, locis etiam analogis v. 22, 25, 29, 33 lectionem confir‑ mantibus. t In Hebraeo jam legitur wly)w et postis ejus. At Septuaginta et Hieronymus olim legebant wmly)w vestibulum ejus. Et recte, ut ex locis analogis v. 31, et 34 nec non v. 9, 22 et 26, manifestum est.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

123

[fol. 48] 28 And he took me into the inner courtyard, through the South gate, and he measured the South gate according to the mea‑ surements above. 29 And its chambers, its jambs and its vestibule. This and its ves‑ tibules had windows on all sides. Fiy cubits long and twenty‑five cubits wide. 30q And there were vestibules all round VvtT and SsrR of twenty‑five cubits in length and five cubits in width. 31 Its vestibule looked towards the outer courtyard and there were palm trees decorating its jambs. And it had eight steps. 32 And he led me to rthe inner courtyard, towards the East and he measured the [eastern] gate with the same measurements. 33 and its chambers, its jambs and its vestibule according to these measurements. This one and its vestibule had windows all round. The length [of this one] was fiy cubits and its width was twenty‑five cubits. 34 And its vestibule looked towards the outer courtyard and there were palm trees on its jambs on either side.

[fol. 49] 35 And he introduced me by the North gate and he me‑ asured [it] 36 according to the measurements above, its chambers, its jambs and its vestibule and sthis had windows and its vestibules all round. The length of this was fiy cubits and its width twenty‑five cubits. 37 And tits vestibule looked towards the outer courtyard and there were palm trees on its jambs on either side. And it had eight steps. 38 And [the vestibule had] a room [illuminated on all sides by the windows described above], Z, z, and its entrance Y, y, it was in the buress of the doors KL, kl. There they would wash the holocaust. q In the Roman edition of Septuagint verse 30 is missing. It may however, be read in the Aldina version, in the Alexandrian manuscript and in the Arab version fol‑ lowing the Hebrew text with its Syriac and Caldea versions. r Septuagint reads gate instead of courtyard more correctly, as the Prophet had al‑ ready been led to the courtyard before. s Likewise Septuagint and the Latin translator, also in the analogous places (verses 22, 25, 29, 33) which confirm the reading. t In the Hebrew text we can already read wly)w and its jambs. But Septuagint and Jerome used to read wmly)w its vestibule correctly, as is clarified in the analogous places (verses 31 and 34 and also 9, 22 and 26).

124

The Temple of Solomon

39 Et in vestibulo portae duae mensae hinc αα et duae mensae inde ββ ut ad eas mactetur holocaustum et sacrificium pro peccato et sacrificium pro delicto. 40 Et ad latus [vestibuli] extra gradum [summum qui est] ad ostium portae aquilonis erant duae mensae γγ et ad latus alterum vestibuli portae duae mensae δδ. 41 Quatuor mensae hinc et quatuor mensae inde ad latus portae, octo mensae super quas mactabunt [sacrificia]. 42 Et quatuor mensae ad holocaustum erant de lapidibus dolatis longitudinis cubiti unius et dimidii et latitudinis cubiti unius et dimidii, et altitudinis cubiti unius, super quas etiam ponent vasa in quibus mactabunt holocaustum et sacrificium. 43 Et vuncini [longitudine] palmi unius dispositi erant [in vestibulo] intrinsecus per circuitum [ad suspendendas carnes,] et super mensas [etiam erant] carnes oblationis. 44 Et extra portam interiorem [ad latus occidentale erant] xexedrae yPrincipum [curiarum Sacerdotum] in atrio interiore [utrinque. Item] zuna [multorum cubiculorum exedra] ad latus [orientale] portae aquilonis, et facies eorum versus austrum et una ad latus [orientale] portae aAustri, [et] facies versus aquilonem. 45 Et dixit ad me, haec exedra cuius facies est versus Austrum, Sacerdotum erit custodientium custodiam

v

Ita Jonathan in Targ. interpretatur vocem Mytp#. saepe cubiculum significat. Hic et in sequentibus intellige aedificium multorum cubiculorum, perinde ut, Josephus, aedificium totum inter binas portas exe‑ dram vocat. y Myr# aliquando cantores saepissime Principes significat. Cantoribus conceden‑ dae non sunt exedrae dignissimae in atrio Sacerdotum. Nos cum Syro Principes vertimus; eo quod in templo Solomonis erat exedra Principum (Jer. 35, 4) et exedra vel cubiculum Gamariae Principis in atrio superiore (Jer. 36, 10. 12). z In Hebr. jam est r#) quae, at Septuaginta legebant dx) una, conspirante sensu. a In Hebr. jam legitur Mydqh Orientis: verum Septuaginta legebant Myrdh Austri, eademque recurrit lectio in commate sequente tam in Hebr. quam in versionibus sed et oppositio inter portas Austri et Aquilonis de quibus hic agitur lectionem illam confirmat. x hk#l exedra

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

124

39 and in the vestibule of the door there were two tables at one side αα and two tables at the other side ββ to inmolate the holocaust and the sacrifice for the sin and for the crime. 40 And towards the side [of the vestibule], further away than the step [the higher one that is] at the entrance of the North gate, there were two tables γγ and at the other side of the portico of the door there were two tables δδ. 41 Next to the gate there were four tables at one side and four at the other, eight tables, where they would inmolate [the sacrifices]. 42 And the four tables for the holocaust were of carved stones, a cubit and a half in length, a cubit and a half wide and a cubit high, on which they lay the utensils where they would inmolate the holo‑ caust and the sacrifice. 43 And there were vhooks [to hang the meat] of a handbreadth [in length] situated in the vestibule on the outside all around and on the tables [there was also] the meat of the oblation. 44 And outside the inner door [on the western side] were the xrooms of the yPrinces [of the curiae of the Priests] in the inner courtyard [on both sides. Moreover,] zone [room of many rooms] was at the eastern side of the North gate; the façade of these looked to the South, the other to the [eastern] side of the aSouth gate [and] its façade to the North. 45 and he said to me: This zroom, whose façade looks South, will be for the Priests who guard

v

[page 49] Thus Jonathan interprets the word Mytp# in the Targum. hk#l frequently means room. Here and in the following places, we must un‑ derstand construction of many rooms, similar to the way in which Josephus uses room to refer to all the construction which was between the two doors. y Myr# in ancient singers often means Princes. Singers were not meant to be assigned such dignified rooms in the courtyard of the Priests. With the Syriac version, we trans‑ late Princes because in the Temple of Solomon there was a room of the Princes (Jer. 35: 4) and the room of the Prince Gemariah in the upper courtyard (Jer. 36: 10. 12). z [page 50] In the Hebrew text we can already find written r#) which, but Sep‑ tuagint read dx) one, in accordance with the meaning. a In the Hebrew text we can read Mydqh from the East, but Septuagint read Myrdh from the South and as this same reading is to be found in the next period, both in the Hebrew text and in the versions, and moreover the opposition between the South and North gates, which are dealt with here, confirm the reading. x

125

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 50] Templi. 46 Et exedra cuius facies est versus Aquilonem Sacerdotum erit custodientium custodiam23 altaris. Isti sunt filii Sadoc qui accedunt de filiis Levi ad Dominum ut ministrent ei. 47 Et mensus est atrium [interius] longitudine centum cubitorum et latitudine centum cubitorum, quadratum; et altare ante faciem templi. 48 Et introduxit me in vestibulum templi et mensus est postem [utramque] vestibuli quinque cubitis hinc et quinque cubitis inde et latitudinem portae trium cubitorum hinc et trium cubitorum inde. 49 Et longitudinem vestibuli viginti cubitorum et latitudinem bundecim cubitorum et in gradibus cdecem ascendent ad illud. Et columnae [aeneae] erant ad postes, una hinc et una inde. Cap. 41, 1 Et introduxit me in templum et mensus est postes. Sex cubitorum latitudo hinc et sex cubitorum latitudo inde erat latitudo dpostis et latitudo ostii decem erat cubitorum. 2 Et humeri ostii [ad usque latere templi] quinque cubitorum hinc et quinque cubitorum inde. Et mensus est longitudinem ejus quadraginta cubitis et latitudinem viginti cubitis. 3 Et ingressus est intrinsecus et mensus est postem ostii duobus cubitis et ostium sex cubitis et ehumerum ostii septem cubitis fhinc et septem cubitis inde. 4 Et mensus est longitudinem ejus viginti cubitis et latitudinem viginti cubitis ad facies b Septuaginta legunt duodecim. De situ vestibuli disputari potest; nimirum utrum longitudo ejus collocanda sit secundum latitudinem templi, ut in 1 Reg. 6, 3, affir‑ mari primo intuitu videatur? Verum frontes aedificiorum latiores esse debent quam vestibula et minus ostium vestibuli quam templi arguit angustiorem murum anti‑ cum vestibuli quam templi, vestibulum item situ a nobis descripto melius respondet figuris portarum trium in reliquis tribus lateribus atrii interioris, et una cum colum‑ nis aeneis complet longitudinem templi centum cubitorum ut oportet. c Vulg. r#) quibus Septuaginta r#( decem, conspirante sensu Theodotio. Theodotio et Aquila juxta secundam aeditionem (referente Hieronymo) legebant hr#( yt#( undecim. d Vulg. lh)h tentorium. Septuaginta ly)h postem, et sensus id postulat. e Vulg. kxrw et latitudinem. Septuaginta ptkw sensu meliore et cum analogis men‑ suris in v. 2 conspirante. f Ita olim legebant Septuaginta, conspirante sensu.

23

In the manuscript custoriam appears, doubtlessly by mistake.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

125

[fol. 50] the Temple. 46 And the room of the North‑facing façade will be for the Priests who guard the altar. These are the sons of Zadok who arrive from among the sons of Levi to the Lord to serve him. 47 And he measured the [inner] courtyard, which was one hun‑ dred cubits long and one hundred cubits wide, that means: square; and the altar in front of the façade of the Temple. 48 And he took me into the vestibule of the Temple and he mea‑ sured the buresses of the vestibule [one by one], five cubits on one side and five on the other, and the width of the gate, three cubits on one side and three on the other. 49 And the length of the vestibule was twenty cubits, its width was beleven cubits and it was reached by cten steps. And there were bronze columns next to the buresses on either side. Chapter 41. 1 He took me into the Temple and measured the but‑ tresses. Six cubits wide on one side and six cubits wide on the other was the width of the dburess and the width of the entrance was ten cubits. 2 And the ledge of the entrance [to the side of the Temple] was five cubits on one side and five on the other. And he measured its length, forty cubits, and its width, twenty cubits. 3 He went inside and measured the buress of the entrance, two cubits, the entrance, six cubits and the eledge of the entrance, seven cubits fon one side and seven on the other. 4 And he measured its length, twenty cubits, and its width, twenty cubits, to the façade b

Septuagint reads twelve. The situation of the vestibule is open to discussion. Maybe its length should be situated according to the width of the Temple, as ap‑ pears on first sight to be stated in 1 Kings. 6: 3? But the façades of the buildings should be wider than the vestibules, and the fact that the gate of the vestibule is smaller than the gate of the Temple confirms that the former wall of the vestibule was narrower than that of the Temple, and likewise the vestibule, in the place we described, responds better to the images of the three porticos on the three remaining sides of the inner courtyard, and, together with the bronze columns, it completes length of the Temple at one hundred cubits, as it should be. c Vulg. translates r#) as by which, Septuagints reads r#( ten, this meaning coin‑ cides with Teodocion. Teodocion and Aquila in a second edition, according to Jerome, read hr#( yt#( eleven. d Vulg. lh)h the tent, Septuagint ly)h the buttress, this is what the meaning demands. e Vulg. kxrw and the width. Septuagint interprets ptkw with a better meaning and with analogous measurements in consonance with verse 2. f Thus read Septuagint, in accordance with the meaning.

126

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 51] [seu parietes] Templi. Et dixit ad me, Hoc est Sanctum sanctorum. 5 Et mensus est parietem domus sex cubitorum [latitudinis] et [ulteriorem] latitudinem [gazophylacii] lateralis quatuor cubitorum undique per circuitum Domus. 6 Et gazophylacia lateralia, gazophylacium supra gazophylacium erant gtres et [in longitudinem] triginta duabus vicibus [ita ut omnium numerus sic est nonaginta bis]. Et hprominentiae erant in pariete domus ad gazophylacia undique ut illa [incumbendo] continerentur, sed non tenebantur in pariete domus [ingrediente contignatione]. 7 Et platea erat sive ambitus [latus quo calcari posset] superius et adhuc superius ad thalamos. Nam ambitus domus erat unus supra alium circum domum undique. Idcirco erat latitudo [calcabilis seu retractio] ad domum superius. Et sic de inferioribus ascendebatur ad superiora per medium. 8 Et vidi in kloco altissimo undique fundamenta gazophylaciorum lateralium plenae mensurae calami sex cubitorum usque ad alam [illam seu prominentiam calcabilem parietis. Et mediorum gazophylaciorum media erat latitudo cubitorum quinque, adeoque retractiones erant cubitales, quae additae ulterioribus illis latitudinibus efficiunt totam latitudinem internam infimi gazophylacii cubitorum quinque, medii cubitorum sex et supremi cubitorum septem: omnino ut in Templo Solomonis describitur (1 Reg. 6, 6)]. 9 lEt latitudo

g In Hebr. erant tria et triginta [fol. 51] Myim( f p j f (sic enim vox punctanda est) duabus vicibus. Et perinde Septuaginta vertunt tria/konta tri\j di/j triginta ter dupliciter id est triginta secundum longitudinem, ter secundum altitudinem, dupliciter secundum latitudinem. Sed verborum ordinem male tamen ei verterunt, nam tri/j vel (ut ali‑ qua exemplaria habent) tri/a pertinet ad praecedentia verba gazophylacium supra gazophylacium, triplexque tabulatum significat ut etiam manifestum est ex sequen‑ tibus v. 16. h Hebr. venientia, id est quae de muro prominendo proprius et adhuc proprius accedunt. Expresione contraria sed eodem sensu Latini recedentia seu recessus murorum vocant retractiones. k Hebr. in loco altitudinis id est altissimo. l In Hebr. jam deest w et: sed legebant Septuaginta, Latinus, et Jonathan.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

126

[fol. 51] [or walls] of the Temple. And he said to me: “This is the holy of the holies”. 5 And he measured the wall of the House, six cubits [wide] and [the remaining] lateral width [of the chamber], four cubits on all sides all around the House. 6 And the lateral rooms, which were one above another, were gthree and [all along] there were twice thirty [so that the total num‑ ber was twice ninety]. And there were some hledges in the wall of the building as far as the rooms on all sides so that these were joined leaning on it, but they were not inlaid in the wall of the building [when going into the floor]. 7 And there was a space or sphere [place where one could walk] which increased in size as one ascended to the chambers. There was, thus, a superimposed space around the building on all sides. For this reason there was a width [where one could walk or ledge of the wall] next to the House above. And this was how one ascended from the lower floor to the top floor via the middle floor. 8 And I saw, in a kvery high place on all sides the bases of the lateral rooms which measured an entire reed of six cubits as far as the wing [that one or ledge of the wall where one could walk. The average width of the central rooms was five cubits, and, moreover, the reduction of the wall was one cubit, which, added to those widths mentioned before give a total inner width of five cubits for the lowest room, six cubits for the one in the middle and seven cubits for the widest one, all this as described in the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6: 6)]. 9l And the width

g In the Hebrew text there were thirty‑three [page 51] twice (as here we must punc‑ tuate the word Myimf(jpf). And from there on Septuagint translates tria/konta tri\j di/j thirty three times by two times, that is, thirty according to the length, three times, according to the height, two times according to the width. This translation, however, misinterprets the order of the words as tri/j or (as some copies have) tri/a belongs to the preceding words the rooms which were one above another and means triple storey, as is clear also in verse 16. h In the Hebrew text that which arrived, that is, that which, when protruding from the wall arrived nearer and nearer. With the opposite expression but with the same meaning, the Latins call entrances to the drops or recesses in walls. k In the Hebrew text in a place of great height, that is, very high. l In the Hebrew text w and is already missing, but it is read in Septuagint, the Latin version and Jonathan.

127

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 52] parietis gazophylaciorum forinsecus erat quinque cubitorum. Et spatium relictum erat minter lateralia [gazophylacia] quae juxta domum [ex una parte] et gazophylacia [altera lateribus domus remota ex altera parte]. 10 nEt latitudo erat viginti cubitorum circuitu domus undique.

m twk#lh Nybw tybl r#) tw(lc tyb. Loco tyb lege Nyb cum Septuaginta qui verba vertunt a)name/son twªn plerwªn touª oi)\kou kai\ a)name/son twªn e)cedrwªn inter latera juxta domum et inter exedras id est inter latera et exedras. Hebraei eam id exprimunt per duplex inter quod nos per simples. Porro notanda est hic distintio inter cubicula sita ad utramque partem spatii relicti: Haec [fol. 52] dicuntur xw(lc latera seu cubicula lateralia, illa xwk#l exedrae seu cubicula simpliciter: haec juxta domum esse dicuntur, illa non item: id adeo ut clare intelligas templum duplici or‑ dine gazophylaciorum in singulis tabulatis cingi, uno proximo, altero remotiore in quorum medio est ambulacrum seu paradromis hic dicta spatium relictum. Diversa nomina diversique situs diversos cubiculorum ordines plane demonstrant. n Vocem Et legebant hic Septuaginta secundum MS Alexandrinum et versionem arabicam. Porro latitudo viginti cubitorum non erat latitudo spatii relicti spatiive inter cubicula (ut aliqui somniarunt) nam spatium istud postea dicitur latum quin‑ que cubitos. Sed usque latitudo erat loci separati intercedentis aedificium laterale et cubicula Sacerdotum ubi sacrificia comeduntur. Nam de cubiculis istis nondum agitur; incipit eorum descriptio postea cap. 42 et [fol. 53] praeterea si de 100 cubitis latitudinis atrii inter cubicula ista detrahantur 70 cubiti latitudinis Templi et aedificii lateralis conjunctim (Ezek. 41, 12. 14. 15) relinquentur 30 cubiti, quindecim hinc et quindecim illinc latitudo loci separati quae igitur non est viginti cubitorum. Sed quo tandem spectent illi viginti cubiti? Dicam. Scribit Propheta cubicula illa sacer‑ dotum stetisse contra viginti cubitos atrii interioris et contra pavimentum colum‑ natum atrii exterioris, cap. 42, 2. 3, adeoque ut pavimentum columnatum ex una parte designat porticum atrii exterioris e regione sic viginti cubiti ex altera parte designant aedificium atrii interioris e regione, suntque propterea illius mensura pura secundum latitudinem. Id quod constat etiam ex computo. Nam si de tota la‑ titudine praefata cubitorum septuaginta subducatur latitudo Templi viginti cubi‑ torum et latitudo parietis ejus quinque cubitorum hinc et quinque cubitorum inde, usque ad primam retractionem, restabunt quadraginta cubiti, viginti hinc et viginti inde latitudo aedificii Templo adjacentis in circuitu. Vel sic: latitudo cubiculi lateralis est quinque cubitorum ut supra. Ea spatii relicti est quinque cubitorum (Ezek. 41, 11). Ea cubiculi exterioris quanta interioris et ea muri externi etiam quinque cubi‑ torum (Ezek. 41, 9. 12) hoc est totum viginti cubitorum ut supra. Quae omnia fusius explicui ut versionum quarundam erroribus occurrerem quibus recitandis non in‑ moror. Denique nomine viginti cubitorum designabatur hoc idem aedificium stante Templo Solomonis. Aedificavit Solomon viginti cubitos [id est aedificium viginti cubi‑ torum] ad latera domus costis cedrinis a pavimento usque ad tectum (1 Reg. 6, 16).

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

127

[fol. 52] of the wall of the rooms on the outside was five cubits. And the remaining space was mbetween the laterals [rooms] which were next to the House [on one side] and [the other] rooms [further away on the sides of theHouse, on the other side]. 10 nAnd the width was twenty cubits all round the House on all sides.

m twk#lh Nybw tybl r#) tw(lc tyb. Instead of tyb read Nyb with Septuagint which translates a)name/son twªn plerwªn touª oi)\kou kai\ a)name/son twªn e)cedrwªn between the laterals, next to the House and between the rooms, that is, between the laterals and the rooms. The Hebrews expressed the word between twice, we do so once. Again note here the distinction between the rooms situated on either side of the remaining space. Some [page 52] are called xw(lc laterals or lateral rooms, others xwk#l simply rooms or habitations. It is said that the latter are next to the House; the former, no. This is so that you can clearly understand that the Temple was surrounded by two types of rooms on each floor, one nearer, the other further away, in the middle of which was the passageway or corridor, which here is called the remaining space. The different names and places clearly show us that the storeys of the rooms were distinct. n The word and was read here by Septuagint according to the Alexandrian manu‑ script and the Arab version. Again the width of twenty cubits was not the width of the remaining space or of the space which lay between the rooms (as some people imagined), as it says after that this space was five cubits wide. But here the width was that of the further away space which separates the lateral building and the rooms of the Priests where the sacrifices are consumed. Thus, these rooms are not yet spo‑ ken of; the description of these begins after chapter 42 and, [page 53] moreover, if from the one hundred cubits in width of the courtyard which was between these rooms we take away seventy cubits for the width of the Temple and the lateral build‑ ing together (Ezek. 41: 12. 14. 15), we are left with thirty cubits, fifteen on either side, as the width of the separate place, which therefore is not twenty cubits. But, then, what do these twenty cubits refer to? I will tell you. The Prophet writes that those Priests’ rooms were situated facing the twenty cubits of the inner courtyard and fac‑ ing the pavement of columns of the outer courtyard (42: 2‑3), and as the pavement of columns, moreover, delimites, on one hand, the portico opposite and the outer courtyard, thus the twenty cubits, on the other hand, delimited the building in front and the inner courtyard and it is, thus, the correct measurement of that building ac‑ cording to the width. This figures too when we make the calculation. As, if from all the width mentioned before, seventy cubits, we subtract the twenty cubits of the width of the Temple and the five cubits, on either side, of the width of its wall, until the first reduction, forty cubits remain, twenty on one side and twenty on the other, as the width of the perimeter of the building adjacent to the Temple. Or like so: the width of the lateral room is five cubits, as we said above. That of the remaining space is five cubits (Ezek. 41: 11). That of the outer room as well as that of the inner room and that of the external wall, also five cubits (Ezek. 41: 9. 12), that is, in total twenty cubits, as I said above. I explained all these things quite amply in order to overcome the errors in some versions which I will not stop to recount. Finally, the words twenty cubits were used to designate the building itself while the Temple of Solomon sub‑ sisted. Solomon built twenty cubits [that is, a building of twenty cubits] next to the House with panels of cedar from the pavement to the ceiling (1 Kings 6: 16).

128

The Temple of Solomon

11 Et ostia gazophylaciorum erant versus spatium relictum ostium unum versus Aquilonem et ostium aliud versus Austrum. Et latitudo spatii relicti erat quinque cubitorum per circuitum. 12 Et aedificium [jam descriptum] quod [externa sua facie] erat ante locum separatum, [situm] ad plagam Occidentis latum erat cubitos septuaginta. Et paries aedificii erat quinque cubitos latus per circuitum, et longitudo ejus nonaginta cubitorum. 13 Et mensus est domum longidudinem centum cubitorum [gazophylaciis exclusis et inclusis columnis aeneis] et locum separatum et aedificium et parietem eorum [conjunctim] longitudine centum cubitorum, 14 et latitudinem faciei domus et loci separati [hinc inde] versus orientem [conjunctim] centum cubitorum. 15 Et mensus est longitudinem aedificii ante locum separatum [occidentalem] qui erat ad posticam partem ejus et oparadromides ejus hinc et inde centum cubitorum. 16 Et Templum intus et vestibula atrii [et] limina et fenestrae obliquae et paradromides [inter gazophylacia lateralia] in circuitu [Templi] per tres [gazophylaciorum] ordines coram [gazophylacii cujusque] limen [hinc inde] strata erant ligno undique. Et psolum [Templi] et a solo usque ad fenestras et fenestrae [erant ligno] obtectae.

[fol. 53] 17 Et usque ad [regionem] supra ostium, et usque ad domum [omnem] interiorem et forinsecus [ad cubicula lateralia] et per omnem parietem in circuitu intrinsecus et forinsecus erant vesturae [ex ligno].

o qyt) ambulacrum aedificio avulsum et adjunctum significat, et hic dicitur de am‑ bulacro in circuitu templi cubiti 15 lato quod alias locus separatus appellatur et versu sequente de ambulacris inter cubicula in tribus constructa tabulatis [fol. 54] in cir‑ cuitu templi, et cap. 42, 3. 5 de ambulacris in retractionibus parietum ad singula ta‑ bulata cubiculorum Sacerdotum. p Ita Septuaginta.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

128

11 And the entrances to the rooms were oriented towards the space which remained, one entrance towards the North and the other towards the South. And the width of the remaining space was five cubits in a circle. 12 And the building [already described] which [in its external fa‑ cade] was in front of the separate place, [situated] in the area of the West, was seventy cubits wide. The wall of the building was five cu‑ bits wide all round and its length was ninety cubits. 13 And he measured the length of the Temple at one hundred cubits [excluding the rooms, including the bronze columns]. And the separate area, the building and its walls [together] he measured as being one hundred cubits long, 14 and the width of the façade of the House and of the separate place [on either side] towards the East [all together], one hundred cubits. 15 And he measured the length of the building in front of the [western] separate place which was next to the back part of the laer, and its ogalleries on either side, one hundred cubits. 16 And the Temple on the inside, the vestibules of the courtyard [and] the thresholds and the oblique windows as well as the galleries [which were between the lateral rooms] all round [the Temple] on the three storeys [of rooms], facing the threshold of each room [on either side] were covered in wood all over. The pfloor of the [Temple] and from the floor to the windows, including the windows [were] covered [in wood].

[fol. 53] 17 And until [the area] which was over the entrance, and also until the House [all of it], inside and out [until the lateral rooms], and all the surrounding wall, on the inside and the outside, there was a covering [of wood]. o

qyt) means gallery taken away from the building and annexed to it and here it is said of the gallery of fifteen cubits in width which was all round the Temple, which elsewhere is referred to as the separate place; in the following verse of the passage‑ ways which lay between the rooms built on three floors [page 54] around the Tem‑ ple and in chapter 42: 3‑5 of the passageways which were in the entrances of the walls next to each one of the floors of the rooms of the Priests. p Thus says Septuagint.

129

The Temple of Solomon

18 Et fabrefacta Cherubin et Palmae. Et Palma inter Cherub et Cherub, et [omnis] Cherub habebat duas facies, 19 faciem hominis juxta palmam ex una parte et faciem leonis juxta palmam ex altera parte expressam per omnen domum undique. 20 De terra usque ad [regionem] supra ostium Cherubin et Palmae celatae qin pariete templi. 21 Et templi postes quadrati erant. Et ante Adytum species erat [Cherubin et palmarum et postium quadratorum] sicut species [ante sanctum]. 22 Altare ligneum [erat] trium cubitorum altitudinis et longitudo ejus duorum cubitorum et latitudo duorum cubitorum et cornua erant ei. Et rbasis ejus et parietes ejus erant lignea. Et locutus est ad me, Haec est mensa coram Domino.

[fol. 54] 23 Et duo ostia erant in Templo et [duo] in adyto [sunum ex una parte parietis, alterum ex altera]. 24 Et duae erant valvae ostiis duobus vertibilibus, valvae duae ostio uni [haec ad dextram illa ad sinistram] et duae valvae alteri. 25 Et caelata erant in ipsis, in ostiis [inquam] templi Cherubin et palmae, sicut caelata erant in parietibus. Et ttrabes erant ligni in fronte vestibuli forinsecus [tabulatum cum frontispicio componentes columnis aeneis impositum]. 26 Et erant fenestrae [cancellis] clausae et palmae hinc et illinc ad latera vestibuli et [ad] gazophylacia lateralia domus et [ad] trabes.

q In exemplari Hieronymi legebatur dyqb in pariete et lbyxx templum semel tan‑ tum occurrebat. r Hebr.: wkr) longitudo ejus. Septuaginta: wnd) basis seu stylobates ejus: cum con‑ spirante sensu. s Talia erant ostia etiam in Templo secundo ut describunt Talmudici. t Trabes etiam erant in vestibulo templi secundi sed ob defectum columnatum aliter dispositae quarum descriptionem vide apud Talmudicos.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

129

18 By way of decoration there were cherubs and palm trees. One palm tree between one cherub and the next, and all the cherubs had two faces, 19 a man’s face next to the palm tree on one side and a lion’s face next to the palm tree on the other side, carved all over the House. 20 From the floor until [the area] which was over the entrance there were cherubs and palm trees carved qon the wall of the Temple. 21 The jambs of the Temple were square. And in front of the in‑ nermost part there were a sort of figures [of cherubs, palm trees and square jambs in front of the Saint]. 22 There was an altar of wood three cubits high, its length was two cubits, its width two cubits and it had some ledges. Its rbase and its walls were made of wood. He spoke to me saying: “This is the table which is before the Lord”.

[fol. 54] 23 There were two entrances in the Temple and two in the innermost part [sone on one side of the wall, the other on the other side]. 24 There were two leaves on the gates with movable hinges, two leaves on one gate [the right‑hand one and the le‑hand one] and two on the other. 25 And carved on them, on the doors [I repeat] of the Temple, were cherubs and palm trees, the same as were carved on the walls. There were tbeams of wood on the outer façade of the vestibule [which formed a coffered ceiling with a façade situated on the bronze columns]. 26 And there were closed windows [with bars] and palm trees on either side of the laterals of the vestibule, in the central rooms of the House and on the beams. q In the work of Jerome it read dyqb on the wall and lbyxx the Temple was said only once. r In the Hebrew text: wkr) its length. Septuagint wnd) its base or stylobate in har‑ mony with the meaning. s Thus were the doors of the Temple, as described by the experts in Talmud. t There were also beams in the vestibule of the second Temple but arranged in another way due to the defects in the portico of columns, the description of which can be read in the experts in Talmud.

130

The Temple of Solomon

Cap. 42, 1 Tunc eduxit me ad atrium exterius per viam ducentem ad Aquilonem, et introduxit me ad vcubicula quindecim quae erant e regione loci separati et e regione aedificii [lateralis] aquilonem versus. 2 Ante faciem x[eorum] longitudo erat cubitorum centum ostiis ad Aquilonem spectantibus. Et latitudo [loci totius erat] quinquaginta cubitorum. 3 Contra viginti [cubitos] qui in atrio interiore et contra pavimentum columnatum quod in atrio exteriore erat paradromis e regione paradromidis in triplici [tabulato]. 4 Et ante cubicula deambulatio decem cubitorum latitudinis intrinsecus ylongitudinis [autem] cubitorum centum. 5 Et ostia eorum spectabant ad Aquilonem. Et cubicula superiora angustiora erant eo, quod exedebant paradromides de iis, de infimis [inquam] et de mediis aedificii. 6 Namque triplici ordine constructa erant et non habebant columnas sicut columnae atriorum. Propterea retractio erat de infimis

[fol. 55] et de mediis a fundo. 7 Et muri qui erat extrinsecus e regione cubiculorum versus atrium exterius ante cubicula longitudo erat quinquaginta cubitorum: 8 Eo quod longitudo [aliorum] cubiculorum [quae erant] juxta atrium exterius, erat quinquaginta cubitorum, et ecce e regione templi [conjuncta utraque longitudine erant] cubiti centum. 9 Et sub cubiculis erat introitus ab Oriente ad ingrediendum in ea ab atrio exteriore in latitudine muri zdeambulatori [praefati] Orientem versus.

v x

Ita Septuaginta secundum MS Alexandrinum et versionem Arabicam. Quod si cum Heb. vulg. legas hk#lh exedram, per exedram totum cubiculorum aedificium centum cubitis longum intellige. y [fol. 55] Vulg. tx) hM) Krd via cubiti unius. Septuaginta xm) x)m Kr) longi‑ tudinis centum cubitorum. z Vulg. dcxt atrii. Septuaginta Kltm deambulatorii.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

130

Chapter 42: 1 Then he led me to the outer courtyard by the north‑facing path and he took me into the fieen vrooms which were facing the separate area and facing the [lateral] building which faces North. 2 The length in front of the façade x[of these rooms] was one hun‑ dred cubits in the entrances which look North and the width [of all the place was] fiy cubits. 3 Facing the twenty [cubits] in the inner courtyard and facing the pavement with columns which was in the outer courtyard there was a gallery facing another gallery on the three [stories]. 4 And in front of the rooms there was a passageway of ten cubits wide on the inside [but] one hundred cubits ylong. 5 The entrances of these rooms faced North. And the rooms above were narrower because the galleries absorbed part of these rooms, of those below [I repeat] and those on the middle of the build‑ ing. 6 In effect, they were built on a triple floor and they did not have columns like the columns of the courtyards. For this reason there was a reduction of the rooms below

[fol. 55] and the rooms on the middle floor up. 7 The length of the outer wall facing the rooms looking onto the outer courtyard, in front of the rooms, was fiy cubits. 8 Because the length [of the other] rooms [which were] next to the outer courtyard was fiy cubits, while facing the Temple [adding together both lengths] there were one hundred cubits. 9 And under the rooms there was an entrance from the East to enter therein from the outer courtyard in the width of the wall of the zpassageway [mentioned previously] which looks East.

v, x

Likewise Septuagint according to the Alexandrian manuscript and the Arab version. If you read this with the Hebrew vulgata text , you will find hk#lh room, understanding by room all the building of the one‑hundred‑cubit‑long rooms. y [page 55] Vulg. tx) hM) Krd space of one cubit. Septuagint xm) x)m Kr) of a length of one hundred cubits. z Vulg. dcxt of the courtyard. Septuagint Kltm of the passageway.

131

The Temple of Solomon

10 Et aad Austrum e regione loci separati et e regioni aedificii [lateralis] erant cubicula. 11 Et deambulatio ante ea ad similitudinem cubiculorum quae erant ad Aquilonem, secundum longitudinem bet secundum latitudinem eorum, cet secundum omnes exitus eorum et secundum [omnes] dispositiones eorum. 12 Et sicut ostia eorum dsic ostia cubiculorum quae erant ad austrum. Ostium erat in capite viae, viae [inquam quae erat] ante murum situm ad Orientem in introitu ad ea. 13 Et dixit ad me, Cubicula Aquilonis et cubicula Austri quae sunt ante locum separatum: haec sunt cubicula sancta in quibus Sacerdotes qui appropinquant ad dominum comedent sancta sanctorum. Ibi ponent sancta sanctorum et oblationem et sacrificium pro peccato24 et pro delicto, quia locus sanctus est. 14 Cum autem ingressi fuerint Sacerdotes, non egredientur de sanctuario in atrium exterius, sed ibi reponent vestimenta sua in quibus ministrant, quia sancta sunt, vestienturque vestimentis aliis et sic procedent ad populum.

[fol. 56] 15 Cumque complesset mensuras domus interioris, eduxit me per viam portae quae respiciebat ad Orientem, et mensus est efiguram domus undique per circuitum. 16 Mensus est ad plagam Orientis fquingentos cubitos in calamo mensurae. a

Ita Septuaginta. Vulg. Kbxd Nk sic latitudo eorum. Septuaginta Nbxdkw et secundum latitudinem eorum. c Vulg. lkw et omnes. Septuaginta lkkw et secundum omnes. d Vulg. yxxpkw et sic ostia. Hieronymus et Syrus yxtpk sic ostia. Septuaginta deest. e In Hebr. deest aliquid. Septuaginta habent ὑπὀδειγμα τοῦ οἴκου exemplar vel figura domus. f Vulg. Mynq xwm) #mx quinque cubitos calamorum, sensu perturbato. Septuaginta xw)m #mx quingentos, et juxta versionem Arabicam xwm) xw)m #mx quingentos cu‑ bitos, optime. Porro verba praecedentia [in calamo mensurae] quae in Hebr. legun‑ tur, redundant et non leguntur in Septuaginta. b

24

In the manuscript pectato appears, doubtlessly by mistake.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

131

10 And atowards the South, facing the separate place and facing the [lateral] building there were rooms. 11 And there was a passageway in front of these rooms similar to the rooms which looked to the North, following its length, bits width, its exits and c[all] the situations of these rooms. 12 And such were the doors of these rooms, dsuch were the doors of the rooms which looked South. There was a door at the beginning of the corridor, a corridor [I repeat, which was] in front of the wall situated at the East at the entrance to these rooms. 13 And he said to me: “The north rooms and the south rooms which are in front of the separate place are the holy rooms where the Priests who approach the Lord will eat the most holy offerings. There they will put the most holy offerings, the the oblation, the sin and the guilt sacrifice, for the place is holy. 14 But when the Priests have entered, they will not leave the sanctuary to the outer courtyard, but rather there they will leave the vestments with which they celebrate their ministry, because the ves‑ tments are holy, they will dress with others and thus they will ap‑ proach the people.”

[fol. 56] 15 And when he had finished the measurements of the inner building, he led me by the door which looked to the East and he measured the estructure of the House in its perimeter on all sides. 16 He measured until the East side with the measuring reed, ffive hundred cubits.

a

Likewise Septuagint. Vulg. Kbxd Nk thus was the width of these. Septuagint Nbxdkw and according to the width of these. c Vulg. lkw and all. Septuagint lkkw and according to all. d Vulg. yxxpkw and likewise the doors. Jerome and the Syriac version yxtpk like‑ wise the doors. In Septuagint it does not appear. e Something is missing in the Hebrew text. Septuagint has ὑπὀδειγμα τοῦ οἴκου model or structure of the building. f Vulg. Mynq xwm) #mx five cubits of reeds, altering the meaning. Septuagint xw)m #mx five hundred and according to the Arab version xwm) xw)m #mx five hundred cubits, which is the best reading. Meanwhile, the preceding words: [with a measuring reed] which we read in the Hebrew text, are redundant and they do not appear in Septu‑ agint. b

132

The Temple of Solomon

17 Circuivit ad Aquilonem et mensus est ad plagam aquilonis quingentos gcubitos in calamo mensurae. 18 Circuivit ad Occidentem et mensus est ad plagam Occidentis quingentos [cubitis] in calamo mensurae. 19 Circuivit ad Austrum h25et mensus latus ad plagam austri quingentos [cubitos] in calamo mensurae. 20 Ad quatuor ventos mensus est murum ejus undique per circuitum, longitudinem quingentis cubitis et latitudinem quingentis gcubitis ad dividendum inter sanctuarium et locum profanum. [In sanctuarium erant quingenti cubiti in quingentos quadratum per circuitum, et quinquaginta cubitorum latitudinis in suburbanum ejus per gyrum (Ezek. 45, 2)]. Cap. 43, 1 Et duxit me ad portam quae respiciebat ad Orientem et ecce gloria Dei Israel venit ab Oriente. 2 Et vox ejus tanquam vox aquarum multarum et terra splendebat a gloria ejus. 3 Et vidi visionem secundum speciem quam videram quando venit ut disperderet civitatem, et species secundum aspectum quem videram juxta fluvium Chobar. Et cecidi super faciem meam. 4 Et gloria Domini ingressa est domum per viam portae quae respiciebat ad Orientem. 5 Et elevavit me spiritus et introduxit me in atrium interius, et ecce repleverat gloria Domini domum. g Hebr. calamos. Septuaginta: cubitos. Quod autem cubiti juxta Septuaginta, non calami legi debent, fuse docet L. Capellus (apud Walton in Prolego. Bibl. Polygl.) disputando contra somnium [fol. 56] quoddam Villalpandi et cubiti illi sic per partes computantur. Longitudo portae exterioris ad Aquilonem sitae quinquaginta cubiti, inde ad portam interiorem cubiti centum, longitudo portae interioris cubiti quinquaginta, latitudo atrii interioris cubiti centum, longitudo portae interioris australis cubiti quinquaginta, inde ad portam australem exteriorem cubiti centum, longitudo illius portae cubiti quin‑ quaginta. Summa cubiti quingenti. Haec igitur est atrii latitudo inter extimas facies extimarum portarum, adeoque muri extimi cujus altitudo et latitudo erat calami unius longitudo per singula latera extrinsecus est cubitorum quingentorum. Hujus itaque muri perimeter est quam Angelus metitur. Adde quinquaginta cubitos in suburbanum undique et singula quadrati latera erunt sexcentorum cubitorum. h Commatum ordo in Heb. vulg. inversus est. Angelus enim non transibat per saltum a latere aquilonis ad latus austri, ut ibi habetur, sed circumeundo mensura‑ bat ordine latera quatuor, ut in textu olim legebant Septuaginta.

25

This note h does not appear in the text, but rather as a footnote. We have situ‑ ated it here as it seems the most adequate place.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

132

17 He turned towards the North and he measured until the north place with a measuring reed, five hundred gcubits. 18 He turned towards the West and he measured until the west place with a measuring reed, five hundred [cubits]. 19 He turned towards the South h16and he measured the side of the south place with a measuring reed, five hundred [cubits]. 20 To the four winds he measured its wall on all sides in its peri‑ meter, five hundred cubits long and five hundred gcubits wide divi‑ ding the sanctuary and the profane place. [Towards the sanctuary there were five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits in perimeter squared and fiy cubits wide towards the open space around it (Ezek. 45: 2)]. Chapter 43: 1 And he led me to the door which looked East and behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the East. 2 And His voice was like the sound of rushing water and the earth was radiant with His glory. 3 And I saw a vision like the image I had seen when He came to destroy the city and the image was like the image I had seen by the river Kebar. And I fell face down on the ground. 4 And the glory of the Lord entered the House by the way of the gate which was facing East. 5 The spirit lied me up and brought me into the inner court‑ yard, and behold the glory of the Lord filled the House. g In the Hebrew text reeds, in Septuagint: cubits. But what are cubits in Septuagint should not be read as reeds, this is extensively explained by L. Cappel (in Walton in the Prolegomena of the Polyglot Bible) disputing against an imaginative opinion [page 56] of Villalpando, and the cubits are computed step by step thus: the length of the exterior gate situated towards the North, fifty cubits: from there to the interior door, one hundred cubits; the length of the interior door, fifty cubits, the width of the inner courtyard, one hundred cubits; the length of the interior south door fifty cubits; from there to the exte‑ rior south gate one hundred cubits; the length of the gate, fifty cubits. In total, five hun‑ dred cubits. This is the width of the courtyard which was between the external façades of the external gates and, therefore, the external length for each one of the sides of the external wall was five hundred cubits, and its height and width were a reed. And thus, the perimeter of this wall is the one which the Angel measured. Add fifty cubits on all sides towards the open area, and each side of the square will be six hundred cubits. h The order of these periods in the vulg. Hebrew text is changed. But the Angel did not cross jumping from the North side to the South side, as is said there, but rather, turning around, he measured the four sides in order, as Septuagint formerly read.

16 This

note h does not appear in the text, but rather as a footnote. We have situ‑ ated it here as it seems the most adequate place.

133

The Temple of Solomon

6 Et audivi loquentem ad me de domo, et vir stabat juxta me, 7 et dixit ad me fili hominis, Locus solii mei et locus plantarum pedum meorum quo habitabo in medio filiorum Israel in saeculum, et non polluent ultra domus Israel nomen sanctum meum, ipsi et reges eorum etc. Cap. 46, 19 Et introduxit me per ingressum qui erat ex latere portae in cubicula sancta Sacerdotum quae respiciebant ad

[fol. 57] Aquilonem, et ecce ibi locus in utroque latere [tam altero australi quam hocce boreali] versus occidentem. 20 Et dixit ad me. Iste est locus ubi coquent Sacerdotes [sacrificium] pro delicto [per ignorantiam] et pro peccato et ubi coquent oblationem ut non efferant in atrium exterius ad sanctificandum populum. 21 Et eduxit me in atrium exterius, et transire fecit me per quatuor angulos atrii et ecce atriolum in angulo unoquoque atrii. 22 In quatuor angulis atrii atriola caminata [extrinsecus quinquaginta cubitorum in quadrum, intrinsecus] quadraginta cubitorum in longitudine et triginta in latitudine [exemptis decem cubitis latitudinis ubi gradus culinae proximi ascendant ad porticuum cubicula conviventibus populis dicata. 26Scalas illas culinis proximas esse convenit ne cibi efferantur in atria. Construantur autem in angulis atriolorum spectantibus ad templum ita ut scalae quatuor singulae in singulis atriolis ducant in omnia cubicula. In iisdem atriolorum decem cubitis construi possunt etiam conclavia Nazareis tondendis, excipiendis leprosis aliisque usibus inservientia, ut et gradus in hypogaea descendentes]. Mensurae unius erant quatuor istis angularibus. 23 Et aedificiorum series per circuitum ambiens quatuor atriola et culinae fabricatae erant sub aedificiis per gyrum. 24 Et dixit ad me: istae domus coquentium ubi coquent ministri domus victimas populi.

26 The text which goes from Scalas illas... to descendentes (cf. p. 57 left of the fac‑ simile) contains no indication of where it should be included. We believe that this is the appropriate place and we add the final square bracket.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

133

6 And I heard somebody speak to me from the House while a man stood beside me, 7 And he said to me: “Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet where I will live forever among the sons of Israel and they will never again defile my holy name, nei‑ ther they from the house of Israel, nor their kings”, etc. Chapter 46: 19 And He took me by the entrance which was at the side of the gate to the holy rooms of the Priests, which faced North,

[fol. 57] and behold there was a place on either side [both on the south side and the north side] facing westward. 20 And he said to me: “This is the place where the Priests cook [the offering of the sacrifice] for the guilt, [for the ignorance] and for the sin and where they cook the oblation so that they do not take them to the outer courtyard to sanctify the people.” 21 He led me to the outer courtyard and he led me to the four corners of the courtyard, and behold there was a small courtyard in each corner of the courtyard. 22 In the four corners of the courtyard there were small courtyards which got narrower as they rose up [fiy cubits squared on the out‑ side, but on the inside] forty cubits long and thirty wide [taking away the ten cubits in width where the steps next to the kitchen led to the rooms of the porticos dedicated to the people. Those steps had to be next to the kitchen so that the food was not taken out to the courtyards. But they would be built in the corners of the small courtyards which looked on to the Temple so that each one of the four stairs of each one of the small courtyards led to all the rooms. In the same ten cubits of the courtyards rooms could also be built which were used to shave the Nazarites, to separate the lepers and for other uses; in the same way there were also steps down to the basements]. The measurements of the four corners was the same. 23 There was a series of buildings around the four courtyards and kitchens had been built all around under the buildings. 24 And he said to me: “These are the rooms of the cookers where the House servants will cook the victimes of the people”.

134

The Temple of Solomon

Describit praeterea Ezekiel divisionem Judaeae in tredecim partes parallelas quarum sex ad austrum totidemque ad aquilonem dentur tribubus duodecim; mediae 25.000 cubitos latae termini duo dentur Principi pars media quadrata lateribus singulis cubitorum 25.000, sancta sit ac dividatur in tres partes minores, orientalem Levitarum latam 10.000 cubitos, occidentalem urbis latam 5.000 cubitos et mediam Sacerdotum et sanctuarii latam 10.000 cubitos, singulas 25.000 cubitos longas.

[fol. 58] Sed his missis compleamus descriptionem templi; conferentes templa omnia inter se et supplentes ex templis Solomonis et Herodis quae Ezekiel praetermisit. Adyti figura cubica (1 Reg. 6, 20) ut typus novae urbis Hierosolymorum (Apoc. 21) omnino retinenda est. Huic et loco sancto 30 cubitis alto (1 Reg. 6, 2) imponenda sunt caenacula quae una cum tabulatis ac tecto compleant altitudinem centum et viginti cubitorum supra pavimentum atrii (2 Paralip. 3, 4). Per gradus in muro orientali ascendatur ad superiora omnia et cellarium infra constituatur honoris causa ne thronus Dei collocetur immediate supra terram (1 Paralip. 28, 11). Ut olim Tabernaculo sic templo inferiori nullae sunto fenestrae. Ideo lucernae in sancto ardebant perpetuo, Adytum autem versabatur in tenebris (271 Reg. 8, 12; Psal. 18, 9. 11 et 97, 2) nisi ubi locus reparandus erat et lux desuper immiebatur de caenaculo. Nam caenaculis erant fenestrae templum extrinsecus ornantes. Ne defectus fenestrarum inferius sentiretur, circumpositum est aedificium laterale. Vestibulum reliquo templo ut latitudine sic altitudine cedere decorum est nec multum superare frontem seu epistylium trabium lignearum. Ante postes ejus stent aeneae

27

In the text (1 Paralip. 8: 2) appears. We have corrected the numbering of the reference because the author commits an error.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

134

Ezekiel, also, describes the division of Judea in thirteen similar parts, twelve of which, six oriented to the South and six to the North, would be given to the twelve tribes. The two terms of the middle part, twenty‑five thousand cubits wide, would be given to the Prince; the square part in the middle, twenty‑five thousand cubits on either side, would be considered holy and it would be divided into three lesser parts, the eastern part, of the Levites, ten thousand cubits wide; the western part, of the city, five thousand cubits and the mid‑ dle part, of the Priests and of the Sanctuary, ten thousand cubits wide; each one of them being twenty‑five thousand cubits long.

[fol. 58] But, leaving these things, let´s complete the description of the Temple comparing all the Temples amongst themselves and making up for that which Ezekiel omied relative to the Temples of Solomon and Herod. We must always maintain the cubic figure (1 Kings 6: 20) of the in‑ nermost part of the Temple as it is the image of the new city of Jerusa‑ lem (Apocalypse 21). Over this and over the holy place we must locate similar rooms which, together with the floor and the ceiling, would complete a height of one hundred and twenty cubits over the pavement of the courtyard (2 Chr. 3: 4). By the steps of the eastern wall one would go up to all the upper rooms and, as a mark of respect, a place was pro‑ vided so that the throne of God did not sit directly on the earth (1 Chr. 28: 11). As was formerly the case with the Tabernacle, so the lower part of the Temple should have windows, likewise lamps burned perpe‑ tually in the holy place, but the innermost part of the Temple was in shadows (171 Kings 8: 12; Psalm 18: 9‑11 and 97: 2) except where the place had to repaired; there the light fell from a room, as the rooms had win‑ dows which adorned the Temple on the outside. So that the lack of win‑ dows on the lower part would not be noticed, a lateral building was built all around. It is important that the vestibule be smaller than the rest of the Temple both in width and in height and that it is not much bigger than the front part or the epistyle of the wooden beams. In front 17 In the text (1 Kings 8: 2) appears. We have corrected the numbering of the quote as the author is mistaken.

135

The Temple of Solomon

columnae fulcientes epistylium illud. Basium latitudo definiatur sex cubitis per singula latera, altitudo autem duodecim cubitis usque ad summitatem ostii, inde altitudo columnarum cubitis octodecim et ea capitum cubitis quinque (1 Reg. 6, 15. 16) ita ut tota basium columnarum et capitum altitudo sit cubitorum triginta quinque (2 Paralip. 3, 15) usque ad epistylium quod alios decem vel duodecim cubitos adjunget. Ob altitudinem basium breviores sunt hae columnae pro crassitudine quam marmoreae illae in atriis. Bases duae cum intervallo novem cubitorum basis sesquialtero, implebunt externam latitudinem vestibuli cubitorum 21, cum vestibulo autem longitudinem templi centum cubitorum ad hunc modum. Basis 6 cub. Paries anterior vestibuli 5 cub. Reliqua vestibuli longitudo 15 cub. Paries

[fol. 59] anterior Templi 6 cub. Locus sanctus 40 cub. Velum 2 cub. Adytum 20 cub. Paries occidentalis Adyti 6 cub. Summa 100 cub. cui aedificium thalamorum ad occidentem adjunget alios novendecim cubitos. Situm antiquum templi et altaris Judaei proculdubio scrupulosius retinebant: ut nos eadem loca retineamus, stet altare in medio atrii Sacerdotum et templum cum thalamis in medio loci separati ita ut inter Velum et centrum altaris sint cubiti centum, excurrente Vestibulo in atrium Sacerdotum; et circum atrium illud et locum separatum et inter utrumque ducatur lorica saxea altitudine et latitudine cubiti et longitudine cubitorum centum intrinsecus in singulis septem lateribus. Sic formam habebimus sacrarii intimi Tabernaculo et atrio ejus stricte respondentis. Cingebat Solomon hoc sacrarium duplici cubiculorum peribolo, interiore et exteriore, secundum numerum atriorum (1 Paralip. 28, 12), et peribolum utrumque aedificabat supra columnarum ordines (1 Reg. 6, 36 et 2 Reg. 11, 8. 15), congruenter descriptioni Ezekielis. A situ autem et

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

135

of the buresses of the vestibule would be the bronze columns which sustained that epistyle. The width of the bases was fixed at six cubits on each of the sides, the height at twelve cubits until the highest part of the entrance, from there the height of the columns would be eighteen cubits and the capitals five cubits (1 Kings 6: 15‑16) so that the total height of the bases of the columns and the capitals was thirty‑five cubits (2 Chr. 3: 15) until the epistyle which would add another ten or twelve cubits. Because of the height of their bases these columns are smaller in relation to their thickness than the marble ones in the courtyards. The two bases, together with the intermediate sesquialtera space of the base, would complete the external thickness of the vestibule of twenty‑ one cubits, but with the vestibule the length of the Temple would be one hundred cubits calculated thus: the base, six cubits; the front wall of the vestibule, five cubits; the remaining length of the vestibule, fieen cubits; the front wall

[fol. 59] of the Temple, six cubits; the holy place, forty cubits; the veil, two cubits; the innermost part, twenty cubits; the western wall of the innermost part, six cubits. One hundred cubits in total, to which the West‑facing building of chambers would add a further ninety cubits. The former location of the Temple and the altar was no doubt re‑ membered quite scrupulously by the Jews so that we can remember these places; the altar would have been in the middle of the courtyard of the Priests and the Temple, with its chambers, in the middle of the separate place so that there would have been one hundred cubits bet‑ ween the veil and the centre of the altar, the vestibule continuing until the courtyard of the Priests; around that courtyard and the separate place and between the two would pass the fence of stone which was a cubit high and wide and one hundred cubits long on the inside on each one of the seven sides. Thus we would have the form of the in‑ nermost sacred area which would strictly correspond with the Taber‑ nacle and its courtyard. Solomon surrounded this sacred area with a double peribolos of rooms, interior and exterior, according to the number of the courtyards (1 Chr. 28: 12), and he built each peribolos on a row of columns (1 Kings 6: 36 and 2 Kings 11: 8. 15), according to the description given by Ezekiel. The location and the shape of these

136

The Temple of Solomon

forma portarum e regione altaris (Ezek. 8, 3. 5) determinatur situs et forma harum porticuum, eo quod ostia in lateribus portarum ducere debent in deambulationes porticuum directe atque adeo columnae stare e regione thalamorum in atrio utroque et sic inter axes suos distantiam habere undecim cubitorum omnino ut in templo Herodis. Unde et columnarum magnitudo et numerus et ordo triplex in templi illius atrio exteriore etiam hic manebunt. Neque aliae inferendae sunt mutationes in atrio interiore nisi quae ex dirutis ibi quibusdam portis consequuntur. Etenim in templo Solomonis aedificabatur peribolus atrii hujus tribus Myrw+ seriebus vel ordinibus lapidum et ordine trabium cedrinarum (1 Reg. 6, 36). Et idem fiebat in templo Zerubbabelis (Ezra 6, 4). Similis erat igitur peribolus atrii interioris in templo utroque: puta si portae quaedam spuriae ab Herode ut opinor introductae rejiciantur. In libro Ezrae

[fol. 60] ordines illi tres dicuntur esse lapidum convolutionis28 id est columnarum. Duo erant ordines columnarum in porticu sub exedris, tertius constituatur in externa facie parietis extimi exedrarum respondens columnis porticuum atrii magni. Ordinem trabium cedrinarum concipe disponi in laqueari porticus singulas supra binas columnas transversim, easque affabre caesas esse ut una cum reliqua laquearis vestura lignea gratum aspectum suspicientibus praebeant. Ex unico tantum horum ordine colligitur unicam tantum porticum fuisse in hoc peribolo. Trabes in reliquis cubiculorum contignationibus ex alia minus pretiosa materia constantes hic in centum non veniunt. Juxta faciem extimam portarum stare debet extimus exedrarum paries cum semicolumnis suis tum quod facies illa pro termino atrii interioris habetur (Ezek. 40, 19), tum quod cubicula ubi Sacerdotes comedunt sacrificia latitudinem 50 cubitorum toti portarum longitudini respondentem occupant. Unde medius columnarum ordo cum pariete intertexto stabit e regione

28 The term convolutionis, foreign to Latin, is a calque which reproduces the mean‑

ing of the term llfgi (Ezra 6: 4).

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

136

porticos was determined by the location and the shape of the doors facing the altar (Ezek. 8: 3‑5) because the entrances of the laterals of the gates should lead directly to the passageways of the porticos, the columns should be facing the chambers in either courtyard and thus they should, between their axes, have a distance of eleven cubits in total, as was the case in Herod’s Temple. For this reason the magni‑ tude of the columns, the number and the triple row in the outer court‑ yard of that Temple were also maintained here. And we must not suppose other changes in the inner courtyard other than those which are derived from the destruction of some of the gates there. In effect, in the Temple of Solomon the peribolos of this courtyard was built with three series Myrw+ or rows of stones and with a row of cedar beams (1 Kings 6: 36). And the same happened in the Temple of Ze‑ rrubabel (Ezra 6: 4). Thus, the peribolos of the inner courtyard was similar in either Temple: think that if some false gates made by Herod were opened, I believe. In the book of Ezra

[fol. 60] it is said that those three series were of cylindrical shaped stones, that is, columns. There were two series of columns in the por‑ tico under the rooms, the third was in the external façade of the ou‑ termost wall of the rooms which corresponded with the columns of the porticos of the great courtyard. Imagine that the series of wooden beams was in the coffering of the portico, each one of them on two co‑ lumns transversally and each one of these was skilfully cut so that to‑ gether with the remaining wooden panelling of the coffering they offered a pleasant sight to those who looked at them. From the fact that there was only one series of beams we deduce that there was only one portico in this peribolos. There were less than one hundred beams here in the other ceilings of the rooms and these were not of such a rich material. Next to the external façade of the gates we should find the external wall of the rooms with its semicolumns because, on one side, that façade is considered the end of the inner courtyard (Ezek. 40: 19), on the other side, because the rooms where the Priests eat the sa‑ crifices occupy a width of fiy cubits which corresponds to the total length of the gates. From here we deduce that the central row of co‑ lumns with the adjoining wall will be facing the outermost chambers

137

The Temple of Solomon

thalamorum extimorum et ordo intimus e regione thalamorum mediorum. Inter ordinem extimum et medium stabunt exedrae quas Josephus Gazophylacia nominat; inter medium et intimum porticus; inter intimum et loricam saxeam deambulatio subdialis seu margo atrii Sacerdotum: ostiis ad latera portarum ducentibus in hunc marginem et in porticum, et supra porticum et exedras conjunctim extructis aliis exedris in tabulato duplici. Sic latitudines atrii Sacerdotum eaedem erant hic atque in templo Herodis exacte satis; nimirum intra loricam saxeam 100 cub. intra aedificia exedrarum 136 1/3 cub. intra parietes porticuum 162 cub. Et inclusis exedrarum aedificiis 200 cubitorum. Inter portam aquilonis et cubicula inferiorum

[fol. 61] Sacerdotum e regione loci separati constituta intercedunt cubiti 37 1/2. In hoc spatio intercolumnia quinque nimis densa erunt (ut in templo Herodis) et tria nimis rara, quatuor vero gratum praebebunt aspectum et ejusdem erunt magnitudinis cum intercolumniis porticuum atrii magni exacte. Id enim necessarium est ut his respondeant intercolumnia in pariete extimo. Ejusdem circiter magnitudinis stabunt sex intercolumnia inter portam et angulum atrii versus orientem. Paulo majora quidem erunt haec intercolumnia, sed excessu insensibili et plane contemnendo. Nimirum inter axes columnarum ad Occidentem et in atrio magno sunt cubiti 9 3/8, inter eos ad Orientem cubiti 9 7/12, excessu tantum 1/45 partis intercolumnii. Stant igitur septem columnae tum ad latus utrumque portae orientalis tum ad latera orientalia reliquarum duarum portarum duplici ordine versus atrium interius, tum etiam ad latera omnia illarum trium portarum simplici ordine versus atrium exterius. Sed et in peribolo atrii magni stant columnae ter septem ad utrumque latus portae cujusque. Et hinc Solomon alludendo ad templum divinitus patefactum scribit: Sapientiam aedificasse sibi domum, excidisse columnas septem (Prov. 9, 1).

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

137

and the innermost row facing the central chambers. Between the outer and the central rows are the rooms which Josephus called Living Quar‑ ters; between the central row and the innermost row, the portico; bet‑ ween the innermost row and the stone fence, an open passageway or vestibule of the courtyard of the Priests with entrances to the sides of the gates which led to this vestibule and to the portico and with other rooms built on two stores on the portico and the joined rooms. Thus the width of the courtyard of the Priests was the same, quite exactly, here and in Herod’s Temple; there were definitely one hundred cubits inside the stone fence, inside the buildings of rooms there were one hundred and thirty‑six cubits and a third, inside the walls of the por‑ ticos one hundred and sixty‑two cubits. And with the buildings of the rooms included, two hundred cubits. Between the North gate and the rooms of the lower Priests

[fol. 61] which were built facing the separate place there was a space of thirty‑seven cubits and a half. In this space five bays (as in Herod’s Temple) will be too many and three too few, but four will offer a pleasant sight and would be exactly the same measurement as the porticos of the great courtyard together with its bays; because it was necessary that the bays corresponded with those of the outer wall. Bet‑ ween the Gate and the corner of the east‑facing courtyard there will be approximately six bays of the same measurement as this. These bays will be a lile bigger but the difference is negligible and we ob‑ viously do not need to take it into account. Also, between the axes of the columns to the West and in the great courtyard there are nine cu‑ bits and three eighths, between those to the East, only nine cubits and seven twelhs with an excess of just a forty‑fih part of the bay. There are, thus, seven columns, on one side, on either side of the eastern gate; on the other side, at the eastern sides of the remaining gates, two double gates to the inner courtyard, on the other side also on all sides of those three gates in a series towards the outer courtyard. But also in the peribolos of the great courtyard there were three times seven columns at either side of any gate. And thus Solomon, referring to the Temple which was obviously marvellous, said: “Wisdom built her house and she has carved out seven columns” (Prov. 9: 1).

138

The Temple of Solomon

[fol. 62] Ad exedras ascendant gradus in angulis atrii et a gradibus tendant Paradromides per medium exedrarum latae cubitis quinque vel sex et illuminatae fenestris a regione graduum. Sintque cubicula utrinque cubica singulis lateribus quasi cubitorum novem. Sic enim singula cubicula secundum longitudinem respondebunt singulis intercolumniis et Paradromis cum parietibus ligneis et cubiculis utrinque occupabit latitudinem totam quasi 24 vel 25 cubitorum intra parietes aedificii. Ad singulos dominos pertineant cubicula bina opposita et inferne ubi porticus minuit latitudinem cubiculorum, collocetur unum cubiculum supra alterum et ad superius de inferiore ascendatur per gradus in spatio quatuor vel quinque cubitorum latitudinis versus atrium exterius. Sic enim cubiculum cubicum ejusdem magnitudinis cum superioribus una cum gradibus et intermedio pariete ligneo occupabit latitudinem totam quasi cubitorum 14 intra parietes aedificii et ejusmodi duo cubicula cum tabulatis suis surgent ad altitudinem viginti unius vel viginti duorum cubitorum quae interna erat altitudo porticus in templo Herodis. Columnae surgent septendecim vel octodecim cubitis circiter usque ad epistylium et epistylium facile addet alios quatuor cubitos plus minus usque ad laquear porticus. Quas mensuras sic licebit symmetrice definire. Pro mensura communi adhibeatur latitudo basis columnae palmorum 22 et intervallum basium erit mensurae unius cum dimidio circiter secundum longitudinem, et mensurarum duarum secundum latitudinem: intervallum axium columnarum erit mensurarum duarum cum dimidio circiter secundum longitudinem et mensurarum trium secundum

[fol. 63] latitudinem. Altitudo columnae erit quatuor mensurarum. Addet basis tertiam partem mensurae et capitulum tertiam partem vel forte duas tertias partes malogranatis et reliquo opere columnarum aenearum ornatas. Sic tota altitudo intercolumnii a pavimento ad epistylium erit quinque mensurarum id est dupla latitudinis suae inter axes columnarum. Addet epistylium mensuram

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

138

[fol. 62] Stairs in the corners of the courtyard led to the rooms and from the stairs passageways would continue between the rooms, which were five or six cubits wide and illuminated by windows on the stairs side. And on both sides there would be rooms which were cubic on each side, almost nine cubits long. Likewise each room ac‑ cording to its length would correspond to each one of the bays and the passageway with the wooden walls and the rooms on both sides will occupy a total width of almost twenty‑four or twenty‑five cubits within the walls of the building. To each person would belong two opposite rooms, and below, where the portico diminishes the width of the rooms, one room would be placed above another and stairs would lead to the highest room from the lowest one in a space of four or five cubits wide towards the outer courtyard. Thus a cubic room of the same size together with the ones above, with the stairs and the intermediate wooden wall will oc‑ cupy all the width of almost fourteen cubits within the wall of the buil‑ ding and thus two rooms with their ceilings would rise to a height of twenty‑one or twenty‑two cubits, which was the internal height of the portico in Herod’s Temple. Columns of approximately seventeen or eighteen cubits will rise up to the epistyle and the epistyle will easily add another four cubits, more or less, until the portico with the coffe‑ red ceiling. Thus these measures can be defined symmetrically. Ins‑ tead of the normal measure we will use the width of the base of the column, of twenty‑two handbreadths, and the interval of the bases will be a measure with approximately half, according to the length, and two measures according to the width; the interval of the axes of the columns will be two measures with approximately half according to the length and three measures

[fol. 63] according to the width. The height of the column will be four measures. The base would add a third of the measure, and the ca‑ pital a third or almost two thirds adorned with pomegranates and with the rest of the ornaments of the bronze columns. Thus all the height of the bay from the pavement to the epistyle will be five measures, that is, double its width between the axes of the columns. The epistyle will

139

The Temple of Solomon

sextam usque ad trabes cedrinas et porticus altitudo interna erit etiam dupla latitudinis suae inter axes columnarum. Sic habemus altitudinem praefatam cubitorum 22. Porro tabulatum duorum cubitorum crassitudinis et cubiculum impositum cubitorum novem adjunget alias tres mensuras idque bis. Tantundem addat tectum cum ornamentis suis et tota aedificii altitudo erit mensurarum quindecim seu cubitorum 55, id est tripla altitudinis intercolumniorum, aequalis vero longitudini suae inter portam et angulum sic ut exedrae facies anterior quadrata appareat. Tanta proportionum omnium simplicitate et harmonia commendatur haec structura. Adde descensum ex porticu in atrium exterius et altitudo tota fiet quasi cubitorum sexaginta id est dimidia altitudinis templi, aequalis vero altitudini periboli atrii exterioris. Portae interiores et exteriores tam altitudine quam longitudine et latitudine aequali sibi mutuo respondere debent et exedrarum adjacentium altitudines eodem modo se habere debent ad eas portarum suarum utrobique, atque adeo etiam aequales erunt. Altitudo interna porticuum atrii magni in templo Herodis erit paulo major quam 25 cubitorum puta cubitorum 26 vel 27, id adeo ut in templo Solomonis (cuius specimen in porticu Solomonis usque ad Herodis tempora conservatum fuisse puto) laqueariae porticuum utriusque atrii ejusdem essent altitudinis a solo atrii magni et inde ut fenestrae cubiculorum utrobique et similia parietum ornamenta singula hinc et inde tam altitudinum aequalitate quam formarum similitudine sibi mutuo responderent. Sic exedrarum interioris atrii longitudo spectantibus in atrio exteriore apparebit quasi sesquialtera totius altitudinis earundem, et exedrarum atrii magni longitudo inter portas et angulos tan versus suburbanum quam versus atrium magnum erit altitudinis totius quasi tripla.

[fol. 64] Portis omnibus et angulis atrii magni addiderim praeterea altitudinem ordinis cubiculorum, id est trium mensurarum seu cubitorum undecim, ita ut altitudo tota a pavimento atrii magni sit

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

139

add the sixth measure until the cedar beams and the internal height of the portico will also be double its width between the axes of the co‑ lumns. Thus we have the previously mentioned height of twenty‑two cubits. Moreover, the floorboards of two cubits in thickness and the su‑ perimposed room will add, twice, a further three measures of nine cu‑ bits. The ceiling with its ornaments would add as many more, and the total height of the building will be fieen measures or fiy‑five cubits, that is, triple the height of the bays but the same length between the gate and the corner so that the front façade of the room would be square. This structure is valued for the great simplicity and harmony of all its proportions. Add the descent from the portico to the outer courtyard and the total height will be almost sixty cubits, that is, half the height of the Temple and the same height as the peribolos of the outer courtyard. The inner and outer gates should correspond mu‑ tually in height, length and in width and the heights of the adjacent rooms should be maintained thus until the heights of the gates on both sides and they will also be the same. The internal height of the porticos of the great courtyard in Herod’s Temple will be a lile more than twenty‑five cubits, imagine twenty‑six or twenty‑seven because, as in the Temple of Solomon (of which I believe a model had been kept in the portico of Solomon until the times of Herod), the coffering of the porticos of either courtyard was of the same height as the great court‑ yard counting from the floor and so the windows of the rooms on both sides and each one of the similar ornaments of the walls of either side corresponded mutually both in the equality of their heights and the si‑ milarity of their forms. Thus, the length of the rooms of the inner courtyard, for those who contemplated it in the outer courtyard, is shown to be the ses‑ quialtera of the total height of these rooms, and the length of the rooms of the great courtyard between the gates and the corners, both in the direction of the free area and in the direction of the great court‑ yard, will be almost triple the total height.

[fol. 64] To all the gates and the angles of the great courtyard I would also add the height of the storey of rooms, that is, three measures or eleven cubits, so that all the height from the pavement of the great

140

The Temple of Solomon

cubitorum quasi 70 vel 71. Nam et eadem est altitudo Vestibuli templi, et altitudo illa portarum atrii magni versus suburbanum est tripla latitudinis. Cum assignatis altitudinibus optime conspirat etiam constitutio cubiculorum ad latera loci separati. Habent haec Paradromides ante se in triplici ordine. Usus Paradromidum est ut post ascensum eatur per eas ad omnia cubicula. Sunt igitur tres cubiculorum ordines praeter ordinem infimum qui loco Paradromidis habet deambulationem in medio cubiculorum cubitis decem latam. Sunto haec cubicula istis in atrio sacerdotum aequalia, et quatuor ordines una cum tecto spatium unius ordinis occupante surgent ad altitudinem cubitorum 55, sic, ut haec aedificia tam altitudine tota quam altitudinibus singulorum ordinum exacte respondeant aedificiis atrii sacerdotum. Longitudo autem centum cubitorum e regione templi commode capiet hujusmodi cubicula decem cum suis parietibus in ordinibus singulis et longitudo quinquaginta cubitorum juxta atrium magnum capiet cubicula quinque: quae una cum latere atrii Sacerdotum component aedificium ducentos cubitos longum in cujus medio collocatur porta. Et hac ratione fit ut sacrarii interioris tria latera australe orientale et septentrionale extrinsecus aequalia et similia sint, praeterquam quod duobus atria coquorum occidentem versus adjiciuntur. Deambulatio decem cubitis lata quae cubiculis hisce interjecta et in directum jaceat cum deambulatione porticus, intercedente ostio cubitis quinque lato, et ad utramque partem deambulationis

[fol. 65] latitudo erit 19 1/2 cubitorum a cubiculis occupanda, praeter latitudinem cubitalem loricae saxeae parieti cubiculorum adhaerentis. Detrahuntur trium Paradromidum retractiones, sintque istae bicubitales et restabit externa cubiculorum supremorum latitudo cubitorum 13 1/2, quae bene congruit cum latitudine interna cubitorum novem. Sit parietis anterioris crassitudo quasi bicubitalis. Adde retractiones tres bicubitales et crassitudo inferne erit quasi cubitorum octo. In illa crassitudine fabricandae sunt cellae ubi sacrae

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

140

courtyard was almost seventy or seventy‑one cubits. As this is also the height of the vestibule of the Temple, and the height of the gates of the great courtyard which face onto the free area is triple their width. With the assigned heights the construction of the rooms at the sides of the separate place is also in optimum harmony. In front these have passageways on the triple floor. The passageways were used, aer going up, to go to all the rooms. There are, thus, three floors of rooms as well as the boom floor which, instead of a passageway, has a space, ten cubits wide, between the rooms. Let these rooms be the same as those of the Priests’ courtyard, and the four floors, toge‑ ther with the ceiling which occupies the space of a storey, will rise to a height of fiy‑five cubits, so that these buildings, both in their total height and in the heights of each one of their storeys, would co‑ rrespond exactly to the buildings of the Priests’ courtyard. But the length of one hundred cubits facing the Temple will thus span exactly ten rooms with their walls on each storey, and the length of fiy cubits until the great courtyard will span five rooms: these to‑ gether with the side of the courtyard of the Priests will form a buil‑ ding two hundred cubits long, in the centre of which the gate will be placed. And for this reason it comes about that the three sides of the innermost sacred area, the south side, the east side and the north side, on the outside are the same, excepting two, to which, on the West the courtyards of the cookers are added. The passageway which was in the middle of these rooms and in a straight line with the passageway of the portico, would be ten cubits wide, a gate, five cubits wide, in the middle; on either part of the passageway

[fol. 65] a width of nineteen cubits and a half will have to be occu‑ pied by the rooms, excepting the cubit of the width of the stone fence which was joined to the wall of the rooms. Take away the bays of the three passageways, supposing that the laer are two cubits, and will remain the exterior width, of thirteen and a half cubits, of the highest rooms, which tallies well with the internal width of nine cubits. Let the thickness of the front wall be almost two cubits. Add the bays of three times two cubits and the thickness at the boom will be almost eight cubits. In that thickness rooms will be built to store the sacred ves‑

141

The Temple of Solomon

Sacerdotum vestes reponantur. In cubiculis extimis versus orientem ascendant gradus ad Paradromides ut et in mediis versus templum et ex Paradromide media et suprema pateant introitus ad exedras Principum Curiarum. Aedificiis ita constitutis, innotescit simul distributio exedrarum inter Sacerdotes. Sunt enim exedrarum dignitates quatuor. Primae dignitatis sunt exedrae duae in latere orientali atrii Sacerdotum: secundae dignitatis sunt exedrae duae ad latera orientalia portarum aquilonis et austri: tertiae dignitatis sunt exedrae duae ad latera occidentalia earundem portarum. Hae sex exedrae sunt in atrio Sacerdotum. Sequuntur infimae dignitatis exedrae ad latera loci separati. Et his quatuor dignitatibus respondent quatuor dignitates Sacerdotum. Prima est eorum qui praecedunt Curatores sacrorum, secunda est Curatorum, tertia est Principum, quarta est subjectarum Curiarum. Curias Ezekiel collocat in exedris ad latera loci separati. Ibi, inquit, Sacerdotes comedent sacrificia et deponent vestes sacras. Ut autem curiae singulae stante templo secundo propria habebant cultrorum et vestium repositoria sic in templo primo propria habeant cubicula quippe quae hic sunt vestium repositoria. Illic quaternas habebant vestium arces, habeant hic quaterna cubicula. Quod quidem fiet si uni Curiae Paradromis brevior duabus longior deputetur. Principibus Curiarum aptissimae sedes sunt exedrae dignitatis tertiae: tum quod harum Paradromides et Paradromides exedrarum Curiarum in se mutuo patent et communibus gradibus scanduntur, tum quod numerus cubiculorum

[fol. 66] exacte respondet: Sunt enim 24 Principes et in hisce duabus exedris 24 paria cubiculorum, quatuor in infimo ordine quatuor in medio et quatuor in supremo ad atrii latus utrumque; et bina cubicula singulis magnatibus assignanda esse supra diximus, cum denique quod Ezekiel collocat cubicula Principum in atrio

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

141

tments of the Priests. In the outermost rooms facing East there would be stairs to the passageways, and likewise in the middle ones, facing the Temple, and from the central and highest passageway entrances would be opened onto the rooms of the Princes of the Curiae. The buildings being laid out thus, at the same time we may also know the distribution of the rooms between the Priests. Because there are four classes of dignity of the rooms. The most dignified are two rooms on the east side of the Priests’ courtyard; the second most dignified are two rooms which were on the east sides of the North and South gates; the third are two rooms at the west sides of these same gates. These six rooms are in the Priests’ courtyard. The less dignified rooms follow at the sides of the separate place. And corres‑ ponding to these four levels of dignities there are four levels of dig‑ nities of the Priests. The first is that of those who precede the Guards of the sacred things, the second is that of the Guards, the third is that of the Princes, the fourth is that of the lower Curiae. Ezekiel places the curiae in the rooms next to the sides of the separate place. There, he says, the Priests will eat the sacrifices and they will remove the sacred vestments. But as each one of the curiae, while the second Temple subsisted, had their own places for the knives and the ves‑ tments, thus in the first Temple they would have had their own rooms like the places which here are used to keep the vestments. There they had four wardrobes for the vestments, here they would have four rooms. This would be so if we think that the shortest pas‑ sageway would be for a curia, the longest one for two. For the Prin‑ ces of the Curiae the most appropriate places are the rooms of the third dignity; on one hand, because the passageways of these and the passageways of the rooms of the curiae open onto each other and they are reached by common stairs; on the other hand, because the number of the rooms

[fol. 66] corresponds exactly: as there are twenty‑four Princes and in these rooms twenty‑four pairs of rooms, four on the boom floor, four in the middle and four on the top on either side of the courtyard; and we said above that two rooms must be assigned to each one of the most important ones, that which Ezekiel situates as the room of

142

The Temple of Solomon

interiore extra portam interiorem id est ad latus ejus quodque Jeremiah itidem collocat cubiculum Gemariah Principis in atrio superiore ad vestibulum portae novae in Templo Solomonis, ut et cubiculum filiorum Hanun juxta exedram Principum supra thalamum Maasejah janitoris in eodem templo, ita ut staret exedra illa juxta cubiculum filiorum Hanum et cubiculum illud esset in porta supra thalamum Janitoris. Secundae dignitatis Sacerdotibus assignandae sunt secundae dignitatis exedrae. Hos Ezekiel distinguit in duo genera, 29 custodes custodiae templi et custodes custodiae altaris. Priores collocat ad latus portae aquilonis in exedra cubiculorum spectantium ad austrum, posteriores e regione in exedra cubiculorum spectantium ad aquilonem. Prioris generis sunt Praefectus Templo (2 Paralip. 31, 13 et 35, 8. Act. 4, 1 et 5, 24), Praefectus claudendis portis, P. custodiis agendis, P. conficiendis panibus propositionis, P. aegrotis, P. texendis Velis, P. vestibus sacerdotalibus apparandis, P. aedificiis reparandis etc. Posterioris generis Praefectus describendis temporibus, P. cantoribus, P. Cymbalo caeterisque fidibus, P. sortibus, P. pullorum nidis, P. tessaris, P. libationibus, P. suffimento componendo, et siqui alii sunt ejusmodi una cum Quaestoribus, de quibus omnibus consule Maimonidem (De Apparatu Templi c. 7). Supersunt primi ordinis exedrae magnatibus primi honoris assignandae, ut Summo Sacerdoti et ei qui summi Sacerdotis fluxione seminis contaminati vel vitio corporis affecti munus obiisset, inuncto item in belli munia, et nec non Vicario summi Sacerdotis et subvicariis

[fol. 67] duobus vel pluribus, quibus adde Synedrium magnum cum Principe suo. Conclave Parhedrorum quod summi Sacerdotis

29 The author writes here, in characters which are almost illegible, ‘vizt’, the English abbreviation of videlicet; we correct the text supplying the complete word in Latin.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

142

the Princes in the outer courtyard, outside the inner gate, that is, next to it, and that which Jeremiah in turn situates as the room of Prince Gemariah in the top courtyard next to the portico of the new gate in the Temple of Solomon; also the room of the sons of Hanun, next to the room of the Princes over the chamber of Maaseiah, gatekeeper in the same Temple, so that the room would be next to the room of the sons of Janun and the room would be in the gate which is above the gatekeeper’s chamber. The second‑ranking Priests must be as‑ signed rooms of second dignity. Ezekiel distinguishes two classes amongst these, those who were in charge of the custody of the Tem‑ ple and those whose job it was to watch over the altar. The former were situated next to the North gate, in the room of rooms which faced South, the laer facing them, in the room of rooms which faced North. The Prefect of the Temple belonged to the first class (2 Chr. 31: 13 and 35: 8; Acts 4: 1 and 5: 24), as did the Pre‑ fect in charge of closing the gates, the Prefect in charge of keeping guard, the Prefect in charge of making the loaves of proposition, the Prefect who looked aer the sick, the Prefect who oversaw the wea‑ ving of the veils, the Prefect whose job it was to prepare the priestly vestments, the Prefect in charge of repairing the buildings, etc. To the second class belonged the Prefect in charge of describing the times, the Prefect of the choirs, the Prefect in charge of the Cymbal and the remaining liras, the Prefect in charge of luck, the Prefect res‑ ponsible for the chicken’s nests, the Prefect who was responsible for the tesseras, the Prefect of the libations, the Prefect who was in charge of making perfumes, and some others who are of this class together with the Quaestors; for all these things consult Maimonides (Ap. Temp. 7). We are le with the first class rooms which must be assigned to the most important of the first dignity, like the High Priest and the one who was responsible for the function of High Priest when he was impurified by pollution or affected by a physical fault, as well as when he was dedicated to the labours of war, also the Vicar of the High Priest and two or more Subvicars

[fol. 67] to whom add the Great Sanhedrin with its Prince. The room of the Helpers, which is the headquarters of the High Priest

143

The Temple of Solomon

principalis est sedes priusque dignitatis cubiculum locaverim ad latus dextrum seu boreale portae orientalis, et conclave Synedrii magni ad latus sinistrum. Haec duo caeteris cubiculis majora esse debent. Illa singulatim latitudinem intercolumnii occupant, haec duplo vel triplo latiora constituerim, aucta etiam usque ad atrium exterius et ad tectum longitudine et altitudine. Levitis restant portae, Cantoribus orientalis, caeteris caeterae, nisi forsan summus Sacerdos partem digniorem portae orientalis teneat. Atque talis erat dispositio atrii interioris. Cubicula in peribolo atrii exterioris latitudine et altitudine interna novem cubitorum longitudine quadrupla formentur, et parietibus marmoreis tabulatum superius et tectum sustinentibus distinguantur ab invicem. Perque medium cubiculorum pateat transitus continuus et tabulae populorum convivantium collocentur utrinque, gradibus juxta atriola coquorum constitutis ne cibi in atrium efferantur. Janitoribus stationes regnante adhuc Davide ita assignabantur. In atrio magno ad portam orientalem locandi erant singulis diebus janitores sex sub Shelemiah; ad portam Aquilonis Janitores quatuor sub Zechariah, et ad portam austri Janitores quatuor sub Obed‑ Edom: item ad locum collectionum janitores duo et duo sub filiis Obed‑Edom, id est duo ad conclave Parhedrorum et duo ad conclave Synedrii magni, et occidentem versus ad portam Shallecheth in introitu via ascensus ducentis ad suburbanum Templi sex e quibus

[fol. 68] quatuor erant ad viam ac duos ad Parbar (1 Chr. 26). Per Parbar intellige domum Synedrii inferioris. Scias enim tria fuisse Synedria in templo, Synedrium magnum septuaginta et unius virorum et alia duo singulatim virorum viginti trium. In templo secundo Bartenorius collocat infimum Synedrium ad introitum templi quae est porta orientalis interior, post murum Chajil, ante atrium faeminarum, medium synedrium ad dextram ubi eundo per

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

143

and the room of the greatest dignity, I would place to the right or the north side of the eastern gate, and the room of the Great Sanhedrin on the le side. These two must be bigger than the other rooms. In that one, the bays only occupy the width; this one I would consider double or triple wide, having been extended too to the outer court‑ yard and to the ceiling in length and width. We are le with the gates for the Levites, for the choirs the eastern gate, for the others the other gates, unless the High Priest had the most dignified part of the eas‑ tern gate. And thus was the layout of the inner courtyard. In the peribolos of the outer courtyard rooms would be formed of a width and internal height of nine cubits and a quadruple length and they would be distinguished by their marble walls which would sustain the upper floor and the ceiling respectively. And in the mid‑ dle of the rooms a continuous way would be opened and at either side would be placed the tables of the peoples who ate together with stairs to the small courtyards of the cooks so that the food would not have to be taken out to the courtyard. The gatekeepers were assigned guard posts until the reign of David. In the great courtyard, next to the eastern gate, six gatekeepers, under Shelemiah, were to be situa‑ ted each day; next to the Aquilon gate, four gatekeepers, under Ze‑ chariah and next to the North gate four gatekeepers under Obed‑Edom; also, there were, next to the place of collections, two gatekeepers, and two under the sons of Obed‑Edom, that is, two next to the room of the Helpers and two next to the room of the Great Sanhedrin, and to the West, next to the gate of Shal. léjet, at the en‑ trance to the way up which led to the free area of the Temple there were six, of which

[fol. 68] four were next to the way and two next to the Parbar (1 Chr. 26). Understand by Parbar the house of the lower Sanhedrin. Because you must know that there were three Sanhedrines in the Temple, the Great Sanhedrin with seventy‑one men, and another two with twenty‑three men each. In the second Temple Bartenorius situates the lower Sanhedrin next to the entrance to the Temple which is the inner eastern gate, after the Hayl wall, in front of the women’s courtyard; the middle Sanhedrin to the right where, going

The Temple of Solomon

144

atrium faeminarum pergitur ad introitum atrii Israel, supremum seu synedrium magnum in coclavi saxeo. Rectius Talmudici et Maimonides collocant medium ad introitum atrii id est ad portam orientalem atrii faeminarum et infimum ad introitum montis templi id est in porta orientali atrii gentium. At in templo Solomonis, ubi atrium faeminarum cum porta sua deerat et tertia erat porta extra montem domus ad viam ascensus, collocandum erit Synedrium primum ad introitum orientalem atrii Sacerdotum, secundum ad introitum orientalem atrii magni, tertium ad introitum suburbani seu portam Shallecheth. Et hinc est quod sex erant janitores ad portam orientalem atrii magni et sex ad portam Shallecheth. In portarum singularum custodiam invigilabant quaterni, in synedriorum custodiam bini. Via autem ascensus 30 ducebat a domo regis augustissima erat ita ut Regina Sabae ad eam stuperet (1 Reg. 10, 4. 5), et inferius juxta domum regis stabat porta Shallecheth. Nam cum Jehojada regem Joas coronari vellet et templum contra impetum Athaliae muniri, statuit is tertiam populi partem ad portam satellitum, seu introitus, tertiam item partem ad portam (dws rectius rws) discessus et tertiam partem ad domum Regis (2 Reg. 11, 2; 2 Paralip. 23). [fol. 69] Ubi janitores locari solebant ibi jam populus in custodiam templi locabatur sic, ut clausa (pro more) porta orientali, duae partes populi ad reliquas duas portas atrii magni positae custodirent templum (2 Reg. 11, 7) et pars tertia ad portam Shallecheth juxta domum regis, custodiret suburbanum ejus. Unde liquet unicam tantum fuisse portam suburbani eamque sitam ad occidentem, et latus occidentale atrii magni porta caruisse. Ideo non populus omnis peragendo ad domum regis exibat per portam satellitum (2 Chr. 23, 20).

30 Doubtlessly

by mistake, the author omits quae.

PROLEGOMENA AD LEXICI PROPHETICI

144

by the women’s courtyard, you arrive to the entrance of the court‑ yard of Israel; the supreme Sanhedrin or great Sanhedrin in the stone room. More correctly the experts in Talmud and Maimonides place the middle one next to the entrance to the courtyard, that is, next to the eastern gate of the women’s courtyard, and the lower one next to the entrance to the Mount of the Temple, that is, at the eastern gate of the courtyard of the Gentiles. But in the Temple of Solomon, where the women’s courtyard with its gate was missing and the third gate was outside the mount of the House, next to the way up, the first Sanhedrin should be situated next to the eastern entrance of the Priests’ courtyard, the second one next to the eastern entrance of the great courtyard, the third one next to the entrance to the free area or the gate of Shal. léjet. And for this reason there were six guards next to the eastern gate of the great courtyard and six next to the Shal. léjet gate. Four were in charge of the survei‑ llance of each one of the gates, two were in charge of the Sanhedrin gates. Moreover, the way up which led from the King’s house was so spectacular that the Queen of Sheba admired it (1 Kings 10: 4‑5), and below was the Shal. léjet gate next to the King’s house. Thus, as Jehoiada wanted Joas to be crowned King and the Temple to be defended against the attack of Atalia, he declared that a third of the people should be next to the gate of the Soldiers or the Entrance, the third part next to the gate (dws or more correctly rws) of Sepa‑ ration and the third part next to the King’s house (2 Kings 11: 2; 2 Chr. 23). [fol. 69] Where the gatekeepers normally stood, there then stood the people for the guard of the Temple so that, as the eastern gate was closed, as was custom, two parts of the people situated next to the other two gates of the great courtyard guarded the Temple (2 Kings 11: 7) and the third part, next to the Shal. léjet gate, next to the King’s house, guarded the free area of this one. From this we can cle‑ arly deduce that there was only one gate in the free area, which was situated to the West and that the west side of the great courtyard did not have any gate. Therefore, not all the people, when going to the King’s house, le by the gate of the soldiers (2 Chr. 23: 20).

ABBREVIATIONS AND TYPOGRAPHIC SYMBOLS IN THE EDITION From books of the Bible Latin text Exod. Reg. Chr. Paralip. Ezra. Cant. Prov. Ecclesiatic. Jer. Hagg. Ezek. Joan. Act. Gal. Col. Heb. Apoc.

Exodus Regum Chronicae Paralipomenon Ezras. Canticum Canticorum Proverbia Ecclesiasticus Jeremias Haggaeus Ezekiel Joannes Acta Apostolorum ad Galatas ad Colossenses ad Hebraeos Apocalipsis

English text Exod. Kings Chr. Chr. Ezra Songs

Exodus Kings Chronicles Chronicles Ezra Song of Songs

Prov. Eccl. Jer. Hag. Ezek. John Acts Gal. Col. Heb. Apoc.

Proverbs Ecclesiastes Jeremiah Haggai Ezekiel John Acts Galatians Colossians Hebrews Apocalypse

The Temple of Solomon

146

From other authors and works in the Latin text and in the English text Antiq. Bell. Jud. Contra Appion. De Ap. Tem. De Cultu Div. Tract. Joseph. Lex. Tal. Maimon. Misn. Mon. Prolego Bibl. Polygl. Talm. Hierosol.

Antiquitates Judaicae Bellum Judaicum Contra Appionem De Apparatu Templi De Cultu Divino Tractatus Flavius Josephus Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum Maimonides Misna de Sanhedrin De Monarchia Prolegomena in Biblia Polygloa Talmud Hierosolymitanus

Other abbreviations and typographic symbols cap. cf. Heb. vulg. fol. ff. l. p. pp. R. sec. Vulg.

[]

~

capitulus / chapter confer / compare Hebreo jam vulgato folium folios liber / book page pages Rabbi / Rabbi sectio / section in the edition, the equivalent of Heb. Vulg. includes text replaced by the editor includes, in the edition, interpolations or clarifications made by Newton; in the critical study they are used as double parentheses indicates, at the beginning of a sentence, that the previous text is omied; at the end of a sentence, the text which follows is omied

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND WORKS QUOTED IN THE EDITION (The numbering that appears here corresponds to the folio number assigned to the text of Newton) Abtines, 30, 35 Acts of the Apostles, 7, 17, 67 Alexander, 20 Alexander the Great, 5, 13 Antiquitates Judaicae, 8, 15, 17, 40 Antonia, 17, 36 Apocalypse, 1, 58 Aquila, 43, 50 Arias Montano, 22, 27 Atalia, 68 Bartenorius, 67 Bellum Judaicum, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 32 Benjamin, 35 Buxtorf, 27 Cappel, 9, 22, 32, 55 Cyrus, 5, 40 Contra Appionem, 14, 21, 25, 33 Christ, 7 Chronicles, 2, 3, 58, 59, 66, 68, 69 David, 2, 9, 67 De Apparatu Templi, 66

De Cultu Divino Tractatus, 24, 35, 36 De Monarchia, 15 Drusius, 9 Ecclesiastes, 5 Esther, 46 Ezra, 3, 5, 20, 26, 40, 59 Exodus, 2 Ezekiel, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 25, 32, 33, 40, 46, 53, 56, 59, 60 Ezekiel, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 31, 32, 37, 40, 44, 58, 59, 65, 66 Flavius Josephus, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 49, 60 Gemariah, 49, 66 Haggai, 4 Hanun, 66 Hecataeus, 5, 13, 25, 33

148

Herod, 5, 15, 16, 17, 39, 40, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 Isaiah, 46 Isaiah, 6, 7 Jeconiah, 22 Jehoiada, 68 Jeremiah, 7, 49 Jeremiah, 66 Jerome, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55 Joas, 68 John, 17 Jonathan, 44, 46, 49, 51 Joseph, 22, 30 Kings, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 40, 51, 56, 58, 68, 69 L’Empereur, Constantine, 22, 36 Levi, 50 Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum, 29 Maaseiah, 66 Maimonides, 24, 25, 35, 36, 66, 68 Middoth, 22, 36 Mishna, 15 Moses, 2, 9, 13, 25, 26

The Temple of Solomon Phinehas, 23 Psalms, 58 Prolegomena in Biblia Polygloa, 55 Proverbs, 61 Queen of Sheba, 68 Sadoc, 50 Septuagint, 8, 10, 11, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 Shelemiah, 67 Simeon the Just, 5, 6, 17 Simon, 5 Solomon, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 39, 40, 46, 49, 51, 53, 58, 59, 61, 63, 66, 68 Song of Songs, 46 Talmud Hierosolymitanus, 27 Theodotion, 50 Tiberius, 20 Titus, 17 To the Collosians, 1 To the Galatians, 6 To the Hebrews, 1 Villalpando, 9, 46, 47, 56 Vitruvius, 37

Obed‑Edom, 67 Onias, 5

Walton, 55

Paul, 1 Philo, 15, 16

Zechariah, 67 Zerubbabel, 3 , 5, 23, 39, 40, 59

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. EDITIONS

OF WORKS OF ISAAC

NEWTON

QUOTED IN THE PRELIMINARY

STUDY

CAÑAS, J. M. (ed.), Isaac Newton, In Gallis vero Sulpitius Severus (Ms. 2.3, Yahuda Collection, Jerusalem, National University Library). Digital edi‑ tion in critical and diplomatic format, London 2004, in http://www.new‑ tonproject.sussex.ac.uk. — (ed.), Isaac Newton, Beato Papae et Episcopo (Ms. 2.3, Yahuda Collection, Jerusalem, National University Library). Digital edition in critical and diplo‑ matic format, London 2005, in http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk. COHEN, I. B. and KOYRÉ, A. (eds.), Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Prin‑ cipia Mathematica. The Third Edition (1726) with Variant Readings, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1972. HORSLEY, S. (ed.), Isaaci Newtoni Opera quae exstant Omnia. Commentariis il‑ lustrabat Samuel Horsley, LL.D, R.S.S., 5 vols., London, 1779‑1785, facsim‑ ilar ed., Stuttgart, 1964. MORANO, C. (ed.), Isaac Newton: El Templo de Salomón, Editio Princeps, Span‑ ish translation and philological study by Ciriaca Morano, with an intro‑ duction by José Manuel Sánchez Ron, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1996, reprint 1998. — (ed.), Isaac Newton, Quod Bestia bicornis locuta sit ut Draco (Ms. 2.2, Yahuda Collection, Jerusalem, National University Library). Digital edition in critical and diplomatic format, London 2004, in http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk. — (ed.), Isaac Newton. El Templo de Salomón (Manuscrito Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam). Edición príncipe, trad. esp. y est. por Ciriaca

150

The Temple of Solomon

Morano Rodríguez, Madrid, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cien‑ tíficas, 2009 (2ª ed.). NEWTON, I. Opticks or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colour of Light, London 1704; Latin edition, 1706. — Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, London, 1687 (editio tertia aucta et emendata, London, 1726. — De Mundi Systemate Liber Isaaci Newtoni (publication under a new title of De motu corporum liber secundus which concluded the book of the Prin‑ cipia), London, 1728. — The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. To which is Prefix’d, A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great, published by John Conduit, London, 1728. — Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John. In Two Parts, published by Benjamin Smith, London, 1733. TORIBIO, P. (ed.), Un episodio de la controversia arriana del s. IV según los escritos inéditos en latín de Isaac Newton. Preliminary study, critical edition and Spanish translation (Ms. 19, Var.1, Yahuda Collection, Jerusalem, Na‑ tional University Library). Dissertation defended at the University of Seville, 2009. Link in the digital repository of the CSIC: http://hdl.han‑ dle.net/10261/13095. — “Confer prophetias, nam liber librum aperit: An Unidentified Latin Text by Isaac Newton on Daniel and Revelation (National Library of Israel, Yah. Ms. Var. 1/Newton 19, ff. 162‑165)”, Scripta Classica Israelica, 30 (2011), pp. 113‑135. — Isaac Newton: Historia ecclesiastica (de origine schismatico Ecclesiae papisticae bicornis). Edición crítica, traducción y estudio (Nueva Roma, 38), Madrid, CSIC, 2013.

II. SELECTION OF STUDIES AND CATALOGUES OF MANUSCRIPTS ADAMS, J. C., STOKES, G., LUARD, H. R. and LIVEING, G. D., A Catalogue of the Portsmouth Collection of Books and Papers written by or belonging to Sir Isaac Newton, the Scientific Part of which has been Presented by the Earl of Portsmouth to the University of Cambridge, drawn up by the Syndicate ap‑ pointed 6th November 1872, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1888.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

151

ALEXANDER, H. G. (ed.), The Leibniz‑Clarke Correspondence, Together with Ex‑ tracts from Newton’s Principia and Opticks, Manchester, Manchester Uni‑ versity Press, 1956. AUSTEN, W. H. “Isaac Newton on science and religion”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 31 (1970), pp. 521‑542. AYRES, L., Nicaea and its legacy. An approach to fourth‑century Trinitarian the‑ ology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004. BAILLON, J., “La réformation permanente: les newtoniens et le dogme trini‑ taire”, in Maria‑Cristina Pitassi (ed.), Le Christ entre orthodoxie et lumières, Actes du colloque tenu à Genève en août 1993, Genève, 1994, pp. 123‑137. BÄUMER, A. and BÜTTNER, M. (eds.), Science and Religion/Wissenschaft und Re‑ ligion. Proceedings of the Symposium of the XVIIIth International Congress of History of Science at Hamburg‑Munich, 1‑9 August 1989, Bochum, Univer‑ sitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1989. BECHLER, Z. (ed.), Contemporary Newtonian Research, Dordrecht, Studies in the History of Modern Science 9, D. Reidel, 1982. BRETT, G. S. “Newton’s place in the history of religious thought”, in History of Science Society, Sir Isaac Newton 1727‑1927, A Bicentenary Evaluation of his Work, Baltimore, 1928, pp. 259‑273. BROOKE, J. H., Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. CASTILLEJO, D., A Report on the Yahuda Collection of Newton MSS. Bequeathed to the Jewish National and University Library at Jerusalem, typescript, Jerusalem, 1969. — The Expanding Force in Newton’s Cosmos as Shown in his Unpublished Pa‑ pers, Madrid, Ediciones de Arte y Bibliofilia, 1981. CHAMPION, J., “‘Acceptable to inquisitive men’: some Simonian contexts for Newton’s biblical criticism, 1680‑1692”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), New‑ ton and Religion, pp. 77‑96. COHEN, I. B., “Isaac Newton’s Principia, the scriptures, and the Divine Prov‑ idence”, en A. Danto and C. Morgenbesser (eds.), Philosophy of Science. Readings Selected, Edited and Introduced by A. Danto and C. Morgenbesser, New York, Meridian Books, 1960, pp. 523‑548. COHEN, I. B. and SCHOFIELD, R. (eds.), Isaac Newton’s Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy and Related Documents, New York, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1978; first ed. Cambridge, Cam‑ bridge University Press, 1958.

152

The Temple of Solomon

COHEN, I. B. and KOYRÉ, A., “The case of the missing tanquam. Leibniz, New‑ ton, and Clarke”, Isis, 52 (1961), pp. 555‑566. COHEN, I. B. and SMITH, G. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton, Cam‑ bridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002. DAVIS, E. B. “Newton’s rejection of the ‘Newtonian world view’: the role of Divine Will in Newton’s natural philosophy”, Fides et Historia, 22 (1990), pp. 6‑20. DOBBS, B. J. T., “Newton manuscripts at the Smithsonian Institution”, Isis, 68 (1977), pp. 105‑107. — “Newton’s copy of Secrets Reveal’d and the regimens of the work”, Ambix, 26 (1979), pp. 145‑169. — The Janus faces of genius: the role of alchemy in Newton´s thought, Cam‑ bridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. DOWNING, B. C., Eschatological implications of the understanding of time and space in the thought of Isaac Newton, Edinburgh, Doctoral Thesis, Univer‑ sity of Edinburgh, 1966. EDLESTON, J., Correspondence of Sir Isaac Newton and Professor Cotes, including Letters of Other Eminent Men, now published from the Originals in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, London, John W. Parker, 1850. EFRON, N. J., “Judaism in the theology of Sir Isaac Newton”, Isis, 94 (2) (2003), pp. 379‑380. FAUR, J., “Newton, Maimonides, and esoteric knowledge”, Cross Currents: The Journal of the Association for Religious and Intellectual Life, 40 (1990), pp. 527‑538. FIGALA, K., “Ein Exemplar der Chronologie von Newton aus dem Besitz von Pierre des Maizeaux in der bibliothèque de la ville de Colmar”, Ver‑ handlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 84 (1974), pp. 646‑ 697. FORCE, J., “Newton and Deism”, in Bäumer y Büttner (eds.), Science and Re‑ ligion, pp. 120‑132. — “Newton’s ‘Sleeping argument’ and the Newtonian synthesis of science and religion”, in Thrower (ed.), Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, pp. 109‑127. — “Newton, the Lord God of Israel and knowledge of nature”, in Popkin and Weiner (eds.), Jewish Christians, pp. 131‑158. — “The God of Abraham and Isaac (Newton)”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 179‑200.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

153

— “Sir Isaac Newton: ‘Gentleman of Wide Swallow’? Newton and the Lati‑ tudinarians”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 119‑141. — “Newton, the ‘Ancients’ and the ‘Moderns’”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 327‑357. — “Newton’s God of Dominion: the unity of Newton’s theological, scien‑ tific and political thought”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Re‑ ligion, pp. 76‑102. — “The nature of Newton’s ‘Holy Alliance’ between science and religion: from the Scientific Revolution to Newton (and back again)”, in Osler (ed.), Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, pp. 247‑270. FORCE, J. and POPKIN, R. H. (eds.), The Books of Nature and Scripture: Recent Essays on Natural Philosophy, Theology and Biblical Criticism in the Nether‑ lands of Spinoza´s Time and the British Isles of Newton´s Time, Dordrecht‑ Boston‑London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. — Newton and Religion: Context, Nature, and Influence, International Archives of the History of Ideas 129, Dordrecht‑Boston, Kluwer Academic Pub‑ lishers, 1999 (classified in some catalogues Essays on the Context, Nature and Influence of Isaac Newton’s Theology). — The Millenarian Turn: Millenarian Contexts of Science, Politics and Everyday Anglo‑American Life in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Dor‑ drecht‑Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. FROOM, L. E., The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols., Washington D.C., Review and Herald, 1946‑1954. GAUKROGER, S. (ed.), The Uses of Antiquity: The Scientific Revolution and the Classical Tradition, London, Dordrecht‑Boston, Kluwer Academic Pub‑ lishers, 1991. GOLDISH, M., “Newton on Kabbalah”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), The Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 89‑103. — Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. — “Newton’s Of the Church: its contents and implications”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 145‑164. GREENSTREET, W. J. (ed.), Isaac Newton (1642‑1727): A Memorial Volume, Lon‑ don, G. Bell and Sons Ltd., 1927. GUERLAC, H., “Theological voluntarism and biological analogies in Newton’s physical thought”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (1983), pp. 219‑229.

154

The Temple of Solomon

HALL, A. R., “Sir Isaac Newton‘s Note‑Book, 1661‑1665”, Cambridge Historical Journal, 9 (2) (1948), pp. 239‑250. HALL, A. R. and HALL, M. B. (eds.), Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac New‑ ton, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1962. HARMAN, P. and SHAPIRO, A. E. (eds.), The Investigation of Difficult Things: Es‑ says on Newton and the History of the Exact Sciences, in Honour of D.T. Whiteside, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. HARRISON, J., The Library of Isaac Newton, Cambridge‑London‑New York‑ Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 1978. HAYCOCK, D. B., “‘The long‑lost truth’: Sir Isaac Newton and the Newtonian pursuit of ancient knowledge”, Studies in History of Phlilosophie and Sci‑ ence, 35A (3) (2004), pp. 605‑623. HENRY, J., “‘Pray do not ascribe that notion to me’: God and Newton’s gravity”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), The Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 123‑147. — “Isaac Newton: ciencia y religión en la unidad de su pensamiento”, Es‑ tudios de Filosofía (University of Antioquia), 38 (2008), pp. 69‑102. HEUSER, H., Der Physiker Gottes: Isaac Newton oder die Revolution des Denkens, Friburgo de Brisgovia, Herder, 2005. HUNTER, M. (ed.), Archives of the Scientific Revolution, Woodbridge, Suffolk, Boydell Press, 1998. HUTTON, S., “More, Newton, and the language of Biblical prophecy”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 39‑53. — “The seven trumpets and the seven vials: apocalypticism and Christol‑ ogy in Newton’s theological writings”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), New‑ ton and Religion, pp. 165‑178. ILIFFE, R., “‘Making a shew’: apocalyptic hermeneutics and Christian idol‑ atry in the work of Isaac Newton and Henry More”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 55‑98. JACKELÉN, A., “Relationality in Science and Religion”, Currents in Theology and Missions, Chicago June‑August (2001), vol. 28, nrs 3‑4, pp. 229‑237. JACOB, M. C., “Newton and the French prophets: new evidence”, History of Science, 16 (1978), pp. 134‑142. JONES, P. (ed.), Sir Isaac Newton: A Catalogue of Manuscripts and Papers Col‑ lected and Published on Microfilm by Chadwyck‑Healey, Cambridge, Chad‑ wick‑Healey, 1991.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

155

KNOESPEL, K. J., “Interpretative strategies in Newton’s Theologiae Gentilis Origines Philosophicae“, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 179‑202. KOCHAVI, M. Z., “One prophet interprets another: Sir Isaac Newton and Daniel”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), The Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 105‑122. KOYRÉ, A. and COHEN, I. B., “Newton & the Leibniz‑Clarke correspondence with notes on Newton, Conti, & Des Maizeaux”, Archives internationales d’histoire des sciences, 15 (1962), pp. 63‑126. KUBRIN, D. C., “Newton and the cyclical cosmos: providence and the me‑ chanical philosophy”, Journal of the History of Ideas 28 (1967), pp. 325‑ 346. — Providence and the Mechanical Philosophy: The Creation and Dissolution of the World in Newtonian Thought. A Study of the Relations of Science and Re‑ ligion in Seventeenth Century England, Doctoral Thesis, Cornell University, 1968. LEACH, J., “Mathematics, Reason and Religion”, Pensamiento. Revista de Inves‑ tigación e Información Filosófica, vol. 64, num. 242, special series ner 2, 2008. — “La relacionabilidad es la base del nuevo enfoque científico y teológico” http://tendencias21.netLa‑relacionabilidad‑es‑la‑base‑del‑nuevo‑ enfoque‑cientifico‑y‑teologico‑a2311.html. LINCOLN, B., “Isaac Newton and William ‘Oriental’ Jones on myth, ancient history, and the relative prestige of peoples”, History of Religions, 42 (1) (2002), pp. 1‑18. LINK‑SALINGER, R. (ed.), A Straight Path: Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture, Washington, Catholic University of America Press, 1988. LIVINGSTONE, D. N., “Science, religion and the geography of reading: Sir William Whitla and the editorial staging of Isaac Newton’s writings on biblical prophecy”, British Journal for the History of Science, 36 (128, part 1) (2003), pp. 27‑42. MCGUIRE J. E. and TAMNY, M., ‘Certain Philosophical Questions’: Newton’s Trin‑ ity Notebook, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983. MCLACHLAN, H. J. (ed.), Sir Isaac Newton. Theological Manuscripts, Liverpool, The University Press, 1950. MADIGAN, K., “Christus nesciens? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment? Arian and Orthodox Interpretation of Mark 13:32 in the Ancient Latin West”, Harvard Theological Review 96 (3) (2003), pp. 255‑278.

156

The Temple of Solomon

MAMIANI, M., “The rhetoric of certainty: Newton’s method in science and in the interpretation of the apocalypse”, in Pera and Shea (eds.), Persuad‑ ing Science, pp. 157‑172. — (ed.), Isaac Newton, Trattato sull’ Apocalisse, Torino, Bollati e Boringhieri, 1994. — “Newton on prophecy and the Apocalypse”, in Cohen and Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton, pp. 387‑408. MANDELBROTE, S., “‘A duty of the greatest moment’: Isaac Newton and the writing of biblical criticism”, British Journal for the History of Science, 26 (1993), pp. 281‑302. — “Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet: biblical criticism and the crisis of late seventeenth‑century England”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), The Books of Nature and Scripture, pp. 149‑178. — Footprints of the Lion: Isaac Newton at Work (catalogue of the exhibition at Cambridge University Library, 9 October 2001‑23 March 2002), Cam‑ bridge, Cambridge University Library, 2001. — “Newton and eighteenth‑century Christianity”, in Cohen and Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton, pp. 409‑430. MANUEL, F. E., Isaac Newton, Historian, Cambridge (Massachusetts), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963. — The Religion of Isaac Newton, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1974. MARKLEY, R., “Newton, corruption, and the tradition of universal history”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 121‑143. MEYER, J. R., “God’s trinitarian substance in Athanasian theology”, Scottish Journal of Theology, 59 (1) (2006), pp. 81‑97. MORANO, C., “Proyecto ‘Edición crítica de textos inéditos de Isaac Newton en lengua latina’. Estado actual y avances previstos”, in P. P. Conde Pa‑ rrado, I. Velásquez (eds.), La Filología Latina. Mil años más, Madrid, So‑ ciedad de Estudios Latinos, 2005, pp. 1545‑1558. MÜHLEGGER, F. and MULSOW, M. (eds.), Socinianism and cultural exchange: The European dimension of Antitrinitarian and Arminian Networks, 1650‑1720, Leiden, Brill, 2005. MUNBY, A. N. L., “The Keynes collection of the works of Sir Isaac Newton at King’s College, Cambridge”, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of Londres, 10 (1952), pp. 40‑50. MURRIN, M., “Newton’s Apocalypse”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 203‑220.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

NEWTON, George, A sovereign antidote to expell Arianism: being a collection out of the works of the worthy Mr George Newton, pastor of the church of Christ at Taunton, and of the works of the renown’d worthy Doctor Martine Luther, on of our chief reformers, a man hated by the Papists and Arians of this present age, Exon, printed by Jos. Bliss, 1720. NEWTON, Gabriel, Arianism founded upon spiritual blindness: or, subscribing Arians, hereticks in principles and atheists in practice. In a dialogue betwixt a gentleman, and the minister of his parish, London, printed by John Oliver, 1754. NEWTON PROJECT (online catalogue and texts of theology and alchemy of Isaac Newton), London, 2000, http://www.newtonproject.sussex. ac.uk/prism.php?id=55. OAKLEY, F., “Christian theology and the Newtonian science: the rise of the concepts of the laws of nature”, in O’Connor and Oakley (eds.), Creation, pp. 54‑83. OCHOA, F., “Teología voluntarista ilustrada en los conceptos de Espacio Ab‑ soluto, Tiempo Absoluto y Gravitación Universal”, Estudios de Filosofía (University of Antioquia), 31 (February 2005), pp. 105‑126. O’CONNOR, D. and OAKLEY, F. (eds.), Creation. The Impact of an Idea, Scribner Source Books in Religion, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969. OSLER, M. J. (ed.), Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000. PERA, M. and SHEA, W. R. (eds.), Persuading Science, Canton (Massachusetts), Science History Publications, 1991. PFIZENMAIER, T. C., “Was Isaac Newton an Arian?”, Journal of the History of Ideas, 58 (1997), pp. 57‑80. POPKIN, R. H., “Newton’s biblical theology and his theological physics”, in Scheuer and Debrock (eds.), Scientific Legacy, pp. 81‑97, and in Popkin, Third Force, pp. 172‑188. — (ed.), Milleniarism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought (1650‑ 1800): Clark Library Lectures 1981‑82, Leiden, Publications from the Clark Library Professorship, UCLA, No. 10, E.J. Brill, 1988. — “Newton and Maimonides”, in Link‑Salinger (ed.), A Straight Path, pp. 216‑229. — The Third force in Seventeenth Century Thought, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1992. — “Polytheism, deism and Newton”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 27‑42.

158

The Temple of Solomon

— “Newton as Bible scholar”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Re‑ ligion, pp. 103‑118. — “Newton and fundamentalism, II”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 165‑180. — “Newton and Spinoza and the Bible scholarship of the day”, in Osler (ed.), Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, pp. 297‑311. POPKIN, R. H. and WEINER, G. M. (eds.), Jewish Christians and Christians Jews, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994. PRADO, H. and VILLALPANDO, J. B., In Ezechielem Explanationes et Apparatus Urbis ac Templi Hierosolymitani, 3 vols., Roma, Zannetti, 1596‑1604. QUINN, A., “On reading Newton apocalyptically”, in Popkin (ed.), Millenar‑ ianism and Messianism, pp. 176‑192. REICHNER, H., A descriptive Catalogue of the Grace K. Babson Collection of the works of Sir Isaac Newton and the material relating to him in the Babson In‑ stitute Library, New York, 1950. SCHAFFER, S., “Comets and idols: Newton’s cosmology and political theol‑ ogy”, in Theerman and Seeff (eds.), Action and Reaction, pp. 206‑231. SCHEUER, P. B. and DEBROCK, G., Newton´s Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988. SMOLINSKI, R., “The logic of millennial thought: Sir Isaac Newton among his contemporaries”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Newton and Religion, pp. 259‑289. SNOBELEN, S., “Caution, conscience and the Newtonian Reformation: the public and private heresies of Newton, Clarke and Whiston”, Enlight‑ enment and Dissent, 16 (1997), pp. 151‑184. — “Isaac Newton, heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite”, British Journal for the History of Science, 32 (1999), pp. 381‑419. — “‘God of Gods, and Lord of Lords’: the theology of Isaac Newton’s General Scholium to the Principia”, Osiris, 16 (2001), pp. 169‑208. — “‘The mystery of this restitution of all things’: Isaac Newton on the return of the Jews”, in Force and Popkin (eds.), Millenarian Turn, pp. 95‑118. — “To discourse of God: Isaac Newton’s heterodox theology and his natu‑ ral philosophy”, in Paul B. Wood (ed.), Science and dissent in England, 1688‑1945, pp. 39‑65. — “Isaac Newton and Socinianism: associations with a greater heresy”, in F. Mühlegger and M. Mulsow (eds.), Socinianism and cultural exchange: The European dimension of Antitrinitarian and Arminian Networks, 1650‑ 1720, pp. 241‑293.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

SPARGO, P., “Sotheby’s, Keynes and Yahuda, the 1936 sale of Newton’s man‑ uscripts”, in Harman and Shapiro (eds.), The Investigation of Difficult Things, pp. 115‑134. SMITH, D. E., “Two Unpublished Documents of Isaac Newton”, en Green‑ street (ed.), Isaac Newton, pp. 16‑34. TAYLOR, J. C., Catalogue of the Newton Papers Sold by Order of the Viscount Lymington, London, Sotheby´s, 1936. THEERMAN, P. and SEEFF, A. F. (eds.), Action and Reaction: Proceedings of a Sym‑ posium to Commemorate the Tercentenary of Newton´s Principia, Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1993. THROWER, N. (ed.), Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: A Longer View of New‑ ton and Halley, Berkeley‑Los Ángeles, University of California Press, 1990. TRENGROVE, L., “Newton’s theological views”, Annals of Science, 22 (1966), pp. 277‑294. TROMPF, G. W., “On Newtonian history”, in Gaukroger, Uses of Antiquity, pp. 213‑249. TURNBULL, H. W., SCOUT, J. F., RUPERT HALL, A. and TILLING, L. (eds.), The Correspondence of Sir Isaac Newton, 7 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge Uni‑ versity Press, 1959‑1977, vol. 3, p. 233. VAN DER MEER, J. M. (ed.), Facets of faith and Science. Vol. 3: The role of beliefs in the natural siciences, Ancaster, The Pascal Center, 1996. WAGAR, W. W. (ed.), The secular Mind. Transformations of Faith in Modern Eu‑ rope. Essays Presented to Flanklin L. Baumer, New York, Holmes & Meier, 1982. WESTFALL, R. S., Never at Rest: A biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge‑Lon‑ don‑New York‑New Rochelle‑Melbourne‑Sydney, Cambridge Univer‑ sity Press, 1980. — “Newton’s theological manuscripts”, in Bechler (ed.), Newtonian Re‑ search, pp. 129‑143. — “Isaac Newton’s Theologiae Gentilis Origines Philosophicae“, in Wagar (ed.), The Secular Mind, pp. 15‑34. — “Alchemy in Newton’s library”, Ambix, 31 (1984), pp. 97‑101. — “Isaac Newton: Theologian”, in Edna Ullman‑Margalit (ed.), The Scientific Enterprise, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992, pp. 228‑229. — “Newton and christianity”, in Van der Meer (ed.), Facets of faith and Sci‑ ence. Vol. 3: The role of beliefs in the natural siciences, p. 72.

160

The Temple of Solomon

WHITESIDE, D. T. (ed.), The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, 8 vols., Cam‑ bridge, Cambridge University Press, 1967‑1981. WILES, M., Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996. WOOD, P. B. (ed.), Science and dissent in England, 1688‑1945, Aldershot, Ash‑ gate, 2004. YOUNG, A., An Historical Dissertation on Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion from the Beginning of the World: And on the Methods taken by Divine Providence in Reforming them, London, C. Rivington, 1734.

Colección NUEVA ROMA (Títulos publicados)

1. Inmaculada PÉREZ MARTÍN, El patriarca Gregorio de Chipre (ca. 1240‑1290) y la transmisión de los textos clásicos en Bizancio. Madrid, 1996, pp. XX+429+32 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07588‑9 2. José M.ª EGEA, La Crónica de Morea. Estudio preliminar, texto y traducción. Madrid, 1996, pp. LXXVIII+545. ISBN 84‑00‑07615‑X 3. Pedro BÁDENAS, Antonio BRAVO, Inmaculada PÉREZ MARTÍN (eds.), El cielo en la tierra. Estudios sobre el monasterio bizantino. Madrid, 1997, pp. XII+356+34 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07650‑8 4. Francisco Javier JUEZ GÁLVEZ, Blasii Kleiner Archivium Tripartitum Inclytae Provinciae Bulgariae. Madrid, 1997, pp. VII+438+7 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07690‑7 5. José MARTÍNEZ GÁZQUEZ, Historia Barlae et Iosaphat (Bibl. Nacional de Nápoles VIII.B.10). Madrid, 1997, pp. XXXIX+208+12 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07708‑3 6. Francisco Javier ORTOLÁ, Florio y Platzia Flora: una novela bizantina de época paleóloga. Madrid, 1998, pp. XIV+404+4 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑ 07781‑4 7. Teresa MARTÍNEZ MANZANO. Constantino Láscaris, semblanza de un humanista bizantino. Madrid, 1998, pp. XII+246+13 láms. ISBN 84‑ 00‑07761‑X

8. Francisco María FERNÁNDEZ JIMÉNEZ, El humanismo bizantino en San Simeón el Nuevo Teólogo. La renovación de la mística bizantina. Madrid, 2000, pp. XVI+303 ISBN 84‑00‑07859‑4 9. Jorge AMERUZES DE TREBISONDA, El diálogo de la fe con el sultán de los turcos. Edición de Óscar de la Cruz. Madrid, 2000, pp. 234+7 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07970‑1 10. Eusebi AYENSA PRAT, Baladas Griegas. Estudio formal, temático y comparativo. Madrid, 2000, pp. XX+424+6 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07861‑6 11. Nicanor GÓMEZ VILLEGAS, Gregorio de Nacianzo en Constantinopla. Ortodoxia, heterodoxia y régimen Teodosiano en una capital cristiana. Madrid, 2000, pp. 234+2 mapas. ISBN 84‑00‑07987‑6 12. Óscar de la CRUZ PALMA, Barlaam et Iosaphat. Version vulgata latina. Madrid, 2001, pp. 578+8 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑07925‑6 13. Vicente FERNÁNDEZ GONZÁLEZ, La ciudad de las ideas. La traducción y recepción españolas de la poesía de Constantino Cavafis. Madrid, 2001, pp. XXVI+462. ISBN 84‑00‑0603‑4 14. Juan SIGNES CODOÑER, Carmen CODOÑER MERINO, Arantxa DOMINGO MALVADI, Biblioteca y epistolario de Hernán Núñez de Guzmán (El pinciano). Una aproximación al humanismo español del siglo XVI. Madrid, 2001, pp. XX+534‑+24 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑ 07921‑3 15. Inmaculada PÉREZ MARTÍN, Miguel Atiliates, Historia. Madrid, 2002, pp. LXXI+229+386+4 láms.+4 mapas. ISBN 84‑00‑08014‑9 16. Miguel CORTÉS ARRESE, El descubrimiento del arte bizantino en España. Madrid, 2002, pp. XV+211+21 láms. ISBN 84‑00‑08040‑8 17. Rubén FLORIO, Waltharius: Edición revisada, introducción, comentario y traducción castellana. Madrid y Bellaterra, 2002, pp. 196. ISBN 84‑00‑08063‑7

18. María LÓPEZ VILLALBA, Traducir la revolución. La nueva constitución política de Rigas de Velestino. Madrid, 2003, pp. 224. ISBN 84‑00‑ 08174‑9 19. Pedro BÁDENAS DE LA PEÑA, Inmaculada PÉREZ MARTÍN (eds.), Constantinopla 1453. Mitos y Realidades. Madrid, 2003, pp. 592. ISBN 84‑00‑08207‑9 20. Eneas SILVIO PICCOLOMINI, Epístola a Mehmet II. Introducción, edición y traducción de Domingo F. Sanz. Madrid, 2004, pp. 204. ISBN 84‑00‑08213‑3 21. Enrique MONTERO CARRELLE, Alberto ALONSO GUARDO, Los «Libros de Suertes» medievales: Las Sortes Sanctorum y los Prenostica Socratis Basilei. Estudio, traducción y edición crítica. Madrid, 2004, pp. 304. ISBN 84‑00‑08216‑8 22. Juana TORRES PRIETO, Raúl Glaber. Historias del primer milenio. Madrid, 2004, pp. 304. ISBN 84‑00‑08233‑8 23. Eusebi AYENSA PRAT, Cancionero griego de frontera. Madrid, 2004, pp. 320. ISBN 84‑00‑08249‑4 24. Inmaculada PÉREZ MARTÍN, Pedro BÁDENAS DE LA PEÑA (eds.), Bizancio y la Península Ibérica. De la Antigüedad Tardía a la Edad Moderna. Madrid, 2004, pp. 568. ISBN 84‑00‑08283‑4 25. Concepción NEIRA FALEIRO, La ‘Notitia Dignitatum’. Nueva edición crítica y comentario histórico. Madrid, 2005, pp. 697. ISBN 84‑00‑ 08415‑2 26. Óscar DE LA CRUZ PALMA, La traducción latina del Corán atribuida al patriarca de Constantinopla Cirilo Lúcaris (1572‑1638). Madrid, 2006, pp. 352. ISBN 84‑00‑08468‑3

27. Pablo A. CAVALLERO, La antapódosis o retribución de Liutprando de Cremona. Madrid, 2007, pp. LXXII+368. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑08524‑7 28. Juan SIGNES CODOÑER, Francisco Javier ANDRÉS SANTOS, La Introducción al derecho (Eisagoge) del patriarca Focio. Madrid, 2007, pp. 571. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑08560‑5 29. Enrique SANTOS MARINAS, La cultura material de los primitivos eslavos. Un estudio sobre el léxico de los evangelios. Madrid, 2008, pp. 426. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑08649‑7 30. David HERNÁNDEZ DE LA FUENTE, «Bakkhos Anax». Un estudio sobre Nono de Panópolis. Madrid, 2008, pp. 288. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑ 08693‑0 31. Alberto CONEJERO LÓPEZ, Carmina Urbana Orientalium Graecorum. Poéticas de la identidad en la canción urbana greco‑ oriental. Madrid, 2008, pp. 544. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑08696‑1 32. Antonio GARCÍA MASEGOSA, Interpretatio Alcorani litteralis. Parte I: La traducción latina; introducción y edición crítica. Madrid, 2009, pp. 544. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑08876‑7 33. Patricia VARONA CODESO, Miguel III (842‑867). Construcción histórica y literaria de un reinado. Madrid, 2009, pp. 396. ISBN: 978‑ 84‑00‑08964‑1 34. Eneas SILVIO PICCOLOMINI (PAPA PÍO II), Descripción de Asia, ed. de Domingo F. Sanz. Madrid, 2010, pp. 548. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑09243‑6 35. Loukia STEPHOU, Die neugrieschische Metaphrase von Stephanites und Ichnelates. Madrid, 2011, pp. 334. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑09402‑7 36. Alberto del CAMPO ECHEVARRÍA, La teoría platónica de las Ideas en Bizancio (siglos IX‑XI). Madrid, 2012, pp. 422. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑ 09509‑3

37. Antoni BIOSCA I BAS, Historia de José y Asenet. Madrid, 2012, pp. 184. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑09511‑6 38. Isaac NEWTON, Historia Ecclesiastica (De origine schismatico Ecclesiae papisticae bicornis), ed. de Pablo Toribio Pérez. Madrid, 2013, pp. 632. ISBN: 978‑84‑00‑09736‑3.

NUEVA RO MA

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) occupies, in his own right, one of the most prominent places in the history of science and indeed in the history of humanity. His contributions to physics and mathematics brought about a radical change in our vision of nature. He was also interested in alchemy, theology, chronology and history in general. Newton was particularly captivated by the beauty and the symbolic strength of the Temple of Solomon, and he tried to rescue its true measurements, which had been distorted over the centuries. This work sees the publication, for the third time, of the Editio Princeps of the manuscript Prolegomena ad Lexici Prophetici partem secundam, in which its author proposes a new description of the structure of the Temple of Solomon, based on literary biblical and extrabiblical sources. This book offers also the English translation of the manuscript, its facsimile reproduction and a new study on science, philology and theology. Ciriaca Morano Rodríguez is a researcher of the CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) and she has been Professor at the Complutense University of Madrid. She has specialised in critical edition and in the studies of Latin texts, with a special interest in biblical topics and in the corpus of the unpublished Latin manuscripts of Isaac Newton. Her most important publications have been carried out in various projects, among which special mention must be given to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae of Heidelberg (Germany) and the Vetus Latina Institut of Beuron (Germany). After the publication of the Editio Princeps of the work Issac Newton. El Templo de Salomón, she undertook, in 1996, the project Edición crítica de textos inéditos de Isaac Newton en lengua latina, which has been carried out under her direction. This has been the first project, nationally or internationally, to set as its objective the systematic edition of the unpublished texts of Isaac Newton.

GOBIERNO DE ESPAÑA

MINISTERIO DE ECONOMÍA Y COMPETITIVIDAD