“What Ezekiel Says”: Newton as a Temple Scholar

The title of the manuscript translates as Prologue to the second part of the lexicon of the prophets in which the shape of the Judaic sanctuary is discussed; hereafter: Prolegomena. It comprises nearly 25,000 words of Latin, and belongs to the Babson Collection, Huntington Library, San Marino, California, call number MS 434. The Spanish edition included a historical introduction by the historian of science José Manuel Sánchez Ron and a partial edition and translation of the manuscript into Spanish by the philologist Ciriaca Morano: Morano Ciriaca (ed.), El Templo de Salomón (Madrid, 1996). A complete transcription of the manuscript is now available through the Newton Project: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/THEM00079 (accessed in May 2009). Transcriptions offered in this paper are diplomatic. Punctuation and spelling are left as in the original, as is superscript. Insertions are indicated by backslash and forward slash. The letter ‘thorn’ or ‘p’, which by the seventeenth century had come to be used as an abbreviation of ‘th’ is transcribed as ‘y’, since Newton's own character for it is undistinguishable from ‘y’. translations are mine from the Latin original.

Yahuda MS 1.1, fol. 23r.

Yahuda MS 1.2, fol. 29r, insertion from 29v.

Yahuda MS 9.2, transcribed in Goldish Matt , Judaism in the theology of Isaac Newton (Dordrecht, 1998), 189, 194.

For the importance of this type of commentary as a humanist literary form, see Grafton Anthony T. , Joseph Scaliger: A study in the history of classical scholarship, i: Textual criticism and exegesis (Oxford, 1983), 15–17.

Friedman Jerome , The most ancient testimony: Sixteenth century Christian-Hebraica in the age of Renaissance nostalgia (Athens, OH, 1983), 12.

Goldish , Judaism in the theology of Isaac Newton (ref. 4), 3. Katz David S. , Philo-semitism and the readmission of the Jews to England, 1603–1655 (Oxford, 1982), chap. 2, passim. Feingold Mordechai , Before Newton: The life and times of Isaac Barrow (Cambridge, 1990), 17.

Friedman , The most ancient testimony (ref. 6), 120.

Goldish , Judaism in the theology of Isaac Newton (ref. 4), 57–93, passim. Joseph Mede's Clavis Apocalyptica came out in 1627 and appeared in English in 1643 under the title The key of the Revelation searched and demonstrated out of the naturall and proper charecters of the visions.

“And the word of the LORD came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel”. 1 Kings 6:11–13.

See Yahuda MS 7.3, pt. c, fol. 6r. See also Keynes MS 5, fol. V for the Temple as a symbolic representation of the natural world, http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00005&mode=diplomatic (accessed in May 2009).

Yahuda MS 2.4, http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00267 (accessed in May 2009). For a digitized version of the entire manuscript, visit “Newton's secrets”, http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/item_eng.html?pageId=ms05 (accessed in May 2009). Yahuda MS 14. For a digitized version, “Newton's secrets”, http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/item_eng.html?pageId=ms1 (accessed in May 2009).

Newton owned three further volumes by Maimonides in their Latin translations: De idololatria liber (1641), De sacrificiis liber (1683), Tractatus de iuribus anni septimi et iubilæi (1708), together with Edward Pococke's Porta Mosis (1654–1655), which featured translations of Maimonides's study of the Mishnah. Yahuda MS 13.2, digitized version in “Newton's secrets”, http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/item_eng.html?pageId=ms12 (accessed in May 2009).

Yahuda MS 13.2, fol. 19r. On Buxtorf, see Burnett Stephen G. , From Christian Hebraism to Jewish studies: Johannes Buxtorf (1564–1629) and Hebrew learning in the seventeenth century (Leiden, 1996). Newton owned Buxtorf's Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum complectens (1621).

De abbreviaturis Hebraicis liber novus & copiosus: Cui accesserunt operis Talmudici brevis recensio, cum ejusdem librorum & capitum indice. Item Bibliotheca Rabbinica nova, ordine alphabetico disposita (Basel, 1613). Yahuda MS 28D, fols. 1v–2r, digitized version in “Newton's secrets”, http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/item_eng.html?pageId=ms3 (accessed in May 2009).

Yahuda MS 14, fols. 32r–33v.

Cappel Louis , “Templi Hierosolymitani Triplex Delineatio”, in Walton Brian , Biblia Sacra polyglotta, complectentia textus originales… (London, 1655–57), i, 1–38, and Cappel, “Paraphrastica Explanatio Villalpandi” and “Villalpandi Paraphrasis per Lud. Cappellum”, in Pearson John ., Critici Sacri: Sive doctissimorum virorum in SS. Biblia annotationes et tractatus. Opus summa cura recognitum et in novem tomos divisu (London, 1660), iv, 6012 and 6042. That Newton knew the paraphrases and comments of Villalpando by Cappel in Pearson's and in Walton's works is evident through his references in an approving tone in notes of folios 9 and 56 of the Prolegomena.

The reader is struck by Newton's repeated reference to chap. 14 of Book 6 from Josephus's Bellum Judaicum, since as far as I am aware this work contained only 10 chapters. See folios 14r, 15r and 17r.

Westfall Richard , Never at rest: A biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge, 1980), 346.

Cf. Ben-Menahem Y. Feingold M. Snobelen S. , Newton's secrets: Newtonian manuscripts from the collections of the National Library (Catalogue of the Exhibition “Newton's secrets”, 17 June — 17 July 2007, The Jewish National and University Library).

Yahuda MS 26.3. Newton Isaac , A Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms 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. translated from the Latin of Sir Isaac Newton, not yet published (London, 1728), 333. Newton's feeble justification of the inclusion of his digression about the Temple in this volume says: “The Temple of Solomon being destroyed by the Babylonians, it may not be amiss here to give a description of that edifice”.

“Upon a visit I made him, we had some discourse about Solomons temple; a matter wh̄ I had studyed with attention, & made very many drawings about it, wh̄ I had communicated to my Lord Thomas, earl of pembroke, to M^r. Martin Folkes, & some more of my friends. I found, S^r. Isaac had made some drawings of it, & had consider'd the thing: Indeed he had studyed every thing. We did not enter into any very particular detail about it. but we both agreed in this, that the architecture was not like any designs, or descriptions yet publick. no authors have an adequate notion of antient, & original architecture. S^r. Isaac rightly judged, that it was older than any other of the great temples mentioned in history; & was indeed the original model wh̄ they followed.” Stukeley, “Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's life” (1752), 11. Royal Society MS 142. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/diplomatic/OTHE00001 (accessed in May 2009).

Yahuda MS 26 (post-1710) contains rehearsals for Newton's chap. 5 of the Chronology.

Schab William H. , n.d., Catalogue, 602 Madison Ave., New York City, Early Science and Old Medicine, “A precious unpublished autograph manuscript of seventy-two pages by Isaac Newton, ‘A Treatise on the Temple of Solomon’ “, 33–34.

See the Newton Project website for further information, for example, for possible locations of an undetermined number of pages, which would have originally been part of the same Sotheby Lot as the Prolegomena. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/catalogue/record/THEM00079 (accessed in May 2009).

Morano , op. cit. (ref. 1), pp. lxxxvi and lxxxvii. Villalpando and Cappel did this in their works.

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, Babson Park, Mass. (New York, 1950), 196.

Schab , op. cit. (ref. 24), 34, and Morano , op. cit. (ref. 1), pp. lxxxvi–lxxxvii.

Babson MS 434, fol. 1r. See, for example, Mede , The key of the Revelation, “A Comment upon the Revelation”, “Of the Seales”, op. cit. (ref. 9), 56–57.

Described in 1 Kings 5–8 and 2 Chronicles. Solomon reigned in Israel between 961 and 922 B.C. He began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, according to 1 Kings 6:1, and it took seven years to be completed, 1 Kings 6:38.

Rosenau Helen , Vision of the Temple: The image of the temple of Jerusalem in Judaism and Christianity (London, 1979), 19.

Babson MS 434, fol. 2r. Exodus 30:18 and 1 Kings 7:39.

Babson MS 434, fol. 2r: “retentis quantum sentio mensuris omnibus”.

Babson MS 434, fols. 2r–7r.

Yahuda MS 1. 2, fol. 29r—v. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00137&mode=diplomatic (accessed in May 2009).

Babson MS 434, fols. 8r–10r. The Latin original caption is: “Dimensiones Portarum Atrij utriusque Ezek 40 schemate illustratae”. In this section, Newton commented on Ezekiel 40, verses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16, 15, 17 and 18, 19, 20–23, 24–27, 28, 30, 39–42, 44–46, 47, 48 and 49; chapter 41, verses 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15–16; chapter 42, verses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 12–14, 15; and chapter 46, verse 19.

The verses commented in this part of the manuscript are: Chapter 40, verses 14, 16, 44; chapter 41, verses 6, 8, 9, 10, 15; chapter 42, verses 3, 10; chapter 40, verse 14; and chapter 42, verse 4. Babson MS 434, fols. 10r–11r.

Babson MS 434, fols. 13r–14r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 14r.

Babson MS 434, fols 14r–20r. “Verum templo illo destructo manserunt sepulta fundamentorū vestigia usq₃ dum templum secundum resurgeret \^{ædiflcaretur}/, & ijsdem fundamentis extructa ædificia se mutuò illustrare sperandum est. Videamus igitur quid lucis afferat visionibus Ezekielis contemplatio templi secundi.” Babson MS 434, fol. 14r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 20r. L'Empereur Constantijn , Talmudis Babylonici codex Middoth sive de mensuris Templi, una cum versione Latina … Additis commentarijs (Leiden, 1630).

On L'Empereur, see Van Rooden Peter T. , Theology, biblical scholarship and rabbinical studies in the seventeenth century (Leiden, 1989).

On Cappel, see Laplanche François , L'Écriture, le sacré et l'histoire: Érudits et politiques protestants devant la Bible en France au XVIIe siècle (Amsterdam, 1986), esp. Part 2.

On Montano, whose full correspondence has never been published and of whom we also lack a full biography, see, among others, Canseco Luis Gómez (ed.), Anatomía del humanismo: Benito Arias Montano, 1598–1998 (Huelva, 1998); Manzano Asunción Sánchez (transl. and ed.), Prefacios de Benito Arias Montano a la Biblia Regia de Felipe II (León, 2006); Shalev Zur , “Sacred geography, antiquarianism and visual erudition: Benito Arias Montano and the maps in the Antwert Polyglot Bible”, Imago mundi, lv (2003), 2003–80.

Cf. Cappel , “Templi Hierosolymitani triplex delineatio” (ref. 17), 24, who writes “Josephus Antiq. Lib. 6. c. 6. videtur Septo interiori Portas decem attribuere, 4 nempe à Meridie, totidem à Septentrione, duas verò ab Oriente”. Newton may be reading Josephus differently. The Polyglot says that Josephus had four gates to “Meridie”, but Newton attributes four to the occidental side (“in latere occidentali”), in fol. 16r. The references are unclear. Chap. 6 of Book 6 of Judean antiquities, which Cappel quoted, is about how the Philistines made another expedition against the Hebrews and were beaten and does not seem an obvious source for the interpretation of the Polyglot. Newton refers here to a Chap. 14 of Book 6 of Bellum Judaicum, which, as already mentioned, has only ten chapters.

Babson MS 434, fol. 22r. Newton's notes on questions like this, extracted from his readings of the Talmud (largely through L'Empereur) are extant in his manuscript “Prophecies concerning Christs 2d coming” under the title “Ex Talmudis Babylonici Codice Middoth, sive the mensuris templi”, fols. 35–40. See Newton Project, http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00088&mode=diplomatic (accessed in May 2009).

Babson MS 434, fols. 22r and 25r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 28r. Newton consulted here the Yoma, Buxtorf's Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum (1640), and Montano's “Thubal-Cain sive de mensuris sacris liber: Tribus voluminibus distinctus, de cubito, de satho, de siclo”, which constituted a part of the bibliographical apparatus of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (1569–72).

The Latin version of the dissertation appears in an Appendix / De magnitude cubiti sacri, together with earlier drafts in Yahuda MS 2.4. Greaves John , A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and the Cubits of the several Nations; in which, from the Dimensions of the greatest Egyptian Pyramid, as taken by M. John Greaves, the antient Cubit of Memphis is determined, in Miscellaneous Works (London, 1737), 405–33.

Newton , Appendix / De magnitude cubiti sacri (ref. 49), 429.

It is interesting to note how, as pointed out by Zur Shalev in his study on Greaves's Pyramidographia, some authors have been too quick to interpret Newton's interest in Greaves's work as a sign that the Pyramid encoded natural knowledge, or to relate his interest in the cubit of Memphis to his physics, rather than to his interest in determining the measure of the sacred cubit. Shalev, “Measurer of all things: John Greaves (1602–1652), the Great Pyramid, and early modern metrology', Journal of the history of ideas, lxiii (2002), 555–75, p. 574.

Newton , Appendix / De magnitude cubiti sacri (ref. 49), 427.

Babson MS 434, fol. 27r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 28r.

Newton , Appendix / De magnitude cubiti sacri (ref. 49), 432.

Babson MS 434, fols. 28r and 29r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 34r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 36.

Babson MS 434, fol. 40. The verses that follow are the complete chapters 40, 41, 42 of Ezekiel, as well as the first verses of Ezekiel 41, with separate entries, and the last verses, from 19 to 24, of Ezekiel 46, also with separate entries.

Schab , Catalogue (ref. 24), 34. Morano , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 1), 73.

I use the expression “Temple scholar” with a purely descriptive intention. I do not want to suggest that the authors to whom I refer as “Temple scholars” share an identity as such or belong to a homogeneous group. I do believe, however, that, a comparison between scholars who busied themselves with the topic of the Temple is legitimate, as is the designation “Temple scholar”, at least for this limited purpose.

Babson MS 434, fols. 41r–57r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 58r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 59r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 60r–69r. See also Yahuda MS 8.2, particularly fol. 3r. http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00239 (accessed in May 2009), and Yahuda MS 13. In the first paragraph of Prolegomena, Newton refers to the need to consider the “Israelite world”. Exploring the shape of the Sanctuary was part of this enterprise. Explaining the Israelite ceremonies was another part. Newton never got around to doing it in the space of the Prolegomena.

Prado Hieronymus Villalpando Juan Bautista , In Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis, ac Templi Hierosolymitani (Rome, 1596–1604; hereafter: Explanationes). This work was projected by Hieronymus Prado and completed by Villalpando. It has three volumes. Although their covers show dates between 1596 and 1604, they were composed between 1595 and 1606. The second volume contains most of the material relevant to us. This volume has been edited by Ramírez Juan Antonio ., and translated into Spanish by José Luis Oliver Domingo as El Templo de Salomón: Comentarios a la profecía de Ezequiel según Juan Bautista Villalpando (Madrid, 1991).

Yahuda MS 14, fol. 32r. It appears that Newton agreed with Villalpando in his praising of the classical style as the most adequate for Solomon's Temple. At least, William Stukeley recorded after a visit to Newton, that to his idea that Solomon's temple was Doric, Newton had added that “the greeks advanced it into the Ionic, & the Corinthian”. Stukeley , Memoirs (ref. 22), 13. However, Newton's preference does not show in the text of the Prolegomena. Newton's illustrations do not include any elevation, contrary to Villalpando's sophisticated front drawings. I am not suggesting that Newton had access to In Ezechielem explanationes. But, as this essay shows, Newton knew Villalpando's argument and took issue with it.

Babson MS 434, fol. 2r. “Et eandem fabricam quam Deus per David revelaverat Solomoni \(1 Chron. 28.19)/ Deus idem postquam templum illud subversum fuerat ostendit Ezekieli, retentis quantum sentio mensuris omnibus”.

I am not suggesting that Samuel Lee took issue with Newton or that Newton had read Lee. There is a telling difference of approach between Newton and other authors with regards to the Temple. My interpretation of this difference does not rely on Newton's having had access to Lee's argument in particular.

Ramírez Juan Antonio (eds)., Dios Arquitecto: Juan Bautista Villalpando y el Templo de Salomón (Madrid, 1991). See Montano's drawing in Mandelbrote Scott Bennett Jim , The garden, the ark, the tower, the temple: Biblical metaphors of knowledge in early modern Europe (Oxford, 1998), 134. This work is available on line: http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/gatt/ (accessed in May 2009). Montano was severely criticized for having engaged with rabbinical sources to the extent that he had (from the point of view of many other Catholic Spanish scholars) damaged the authority of the Vulgate. See Shalev , Sacred geography (ref. 44), 59. Montano had published in 1572 his own reconstruction of the Temple in the Polyglot (Exemplar, sive de sacris fabricis liber). The news that Prado and Villalpando were preparing their own reconstruction, which would differ markedly from Montano's, reached the ears of prominent Spanish scholars, before the work went to press. It is therefore possible that Villalpando's plan was the motivation behind Montano's republication of his work in the year 1593.

Lee Samuel , Orbis miraculum, or, the Temple of Solomon, pourtrayed by Scripture-light (London, 1659), “A Preface to the Reader”, sig. A2, 1r.

The passage is quoted from the King James Version. Newton's transcription says: “16 He measured the east side with the measuring rod: It was five hundred cubits.17 He measured the north side; it was five hundred cubits by the measuring rod.18 He measured the south side; it was five hundred cubits by the measuring rod. 19 Then he turned to the west side and measured; it was five hundred cubits by the measuring rod. 20 So he measured the area on all four sides. It had a wall round it, five hundred cubits long and five hundred cubits wide, to separate the holy from the common.” Newton observed that, as Cappel had noted in his criticism of Villalpando's fanciful opinion, we should not read “reeds” where it says “cubits” (as in the Septuagint version). Babson MS 434, fol. 56r, note g.

Lee , Orbis miraculum (ref. 71). “A Preface to the Reader”, sig. A2, 1r.

Villalpando Prado , De postrema Ezechielis prophetae visione, vol. ii of In Ezechielem explanationes (ref. 66), 378–80.

“Whether cubits or reeds” (although “cubits” for Cappel). Cappel, “Templi Hierosolymitani triplex delineatio” (ref. 17), 15.

“Merum istud est Villalpandi commentum, cujus nullum neque vola neque vestigium est in verbis Ezechielis”, ibid. See Babson MS 434, fol. 56r, for Newton's criticism.

Babson MS 434, fol. 56r.

Cappel , “Templi Hierosolymitani triplex delineatio” (ref. 17), 15–16: “Villalpando mordicus Vulg. Adherens utrinque mensuram hic admittit & calamorum & cubitorum”.

Lee , Orbis miraculum (ref. 71), “A Preface to the Reader”, sig. A2, 1r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 56r.

Lee , Orbis miraculum (ref. 71), “A Preface to the Reader”, sig. B.

Villalpando referred to literalistic interpretations in general, and not to Lee's in particular, which came out only in 1659.

Villalpando , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 66), 33–34.

See, for example, Yahuda MS 1.1, fols. 18r–19r. Yahuda MS 9, fol. 18r.

Babson MS 434, fol. 2r.

“Et cum Herodes et Judaei in excessu peccare amarent….” Babson MS 434, fol. 40r.

“Et hisce omnibus sic correctis licebit tandem in hoc Templo speculari illud Ezekielis.” Babson MS 434, fol. 40r.

Whether their own or those of authors, whom they followed closely, as Newton did with Cappel.

Babson MS 434, fol. 11r. See King James's Version, verses 9 and 10: “Then measured he the porch of the gate, eight cubits; and the posts thereof, two cubits; and the porch of the gate was inward. And the little chambers of the gate eastward were three on this side, and three on that side; they three were of one measure: And the posts had one measure on this side and on that side.” Newton's criticism is that: “The Latin version says: And there was an inner space of the House in the laterals of the House. But that in the House is not found in the Hebrew text. And Septuagint reads: And the rest of the space was in between the laterals of the House. That is, the space in between the laterals of one side and the other. That rest of the space is also translated in the worst way as in the house.”.

Babson MS 434, 45r. The verse to which Newton referred says: “He measured also the porch of the gate within, one reed.” Newton explained: “Here in the Hebrew text the scribe, by mistake, wrote twice the words: inside with a rod and he measured the threshold of the door, because they had the same syllables. In the exemplars of Jerome and in the authors of the Syriac version it reads only once. In the version of the Sep. until the Roman edition they are completely omitted by the opposite mistake of a scribe, but in the Alexandrian codex and in the Arabic version they appear only once”.

Newton obviously benefited from Cappel's “Templi Hierosolymitani dimensiones secundum Josephum”, where the French scholar had offered a neat summary of the dimensions of columns, atria, and gates, according to Josephus. Cappel , “Templi Hierosolymitani Triplex Delineatio” (ref. 17), 38.

Cumberland Richard , An essay towards the recovery of the Jewish measures & weights, comprehending their monies, by help of ancient standards, compared with ours of England (London, 1686), 132. Mandelbrote Bennett , The garden, the ark, the tower, the temple (ref. 70), 152. see also Shalev , “Measurer of all things” (ref. 51), 555–75.

Morano , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 1), p. xcviii.

Goldish , Judaism in the theology of Isaac Newton (ref. 4), 104–5.

What follows is one of Newton's explicit calculations: “the length of the sanctuary … will be thus computed: Space between the walls 10 cubits, its wall 1 cubit; small atrium 40 cubits; corridor with its walls between the small atria 9 cubits; other small atrium 40 cubits; sum 100 cubits.” Babson MS 434 f. 33r. From this calculation Newton inferred that the Talmudists were wrong in attributing 135 cubits to the atrium of the women.

Jim Bennett in Mandelbrote Bennett , The garden, the ark, the tower, the temple (ref. 70), entry 51, is an exception to the rule.

See Westman Robert S. McGuire James E. , Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution (Los Angeles, 1977), 70.

Villalpando , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 66), 398–400. Babson MS 434, fol. 46r. The verses 19 and 20 say, according to Newton: “19 Then, he measured the width from the inside of the lower gateway to the outside of the inner court: One hundred cubits to the East. 20 Then he led me to the North and the gate was the one that faces the North in the external court. He measured its length and its width.” Newton noted that this was the Septuagint version and that in the Hebrew text it appeared “as well as on the north” and that, having Villalpando referred these words to verse 19, he imagined that the Angel measured the length of the atrium to the North as well as the width between the doors, and that the length and the width were one hundred cubits each. This is the reason why Villalpando thought, “incredibly”, that the whole atrium was divided into nine small atria, all one hundred cubits in width and one hundred in length.

Villalpando , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 66), 377, 397. Ramírez (eds), Dios Arquitecto (ref.70), 175–91.

Yahuda MS 6, fol. 14r, from Frank E. Manuel's transcription in Manuel, The religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford, 1974), 129.

Taylor Ren , “Architecture and magic: Considerations on the idea of the Escorial”, in Fraser Douglas (eds), Essays in the history of architecture presented to Rudolf Wittkower (London, 1967), 90–94.

Taylor René , “Isaac Newton: Persistencia de la interpretación mística”, in Ramírez (eds), Dios Arquitecto (ref. 70), 139–42.

Dobbs B. J. T. , The Janus faces of genius: The role of alchemy in Newton's thought (Cambridge, 1991), 154.

Goldish , Judaism in the theology of Isaac Newton (ref. 4), 91.

Cf. Morano , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 1), 114.

Villalpando cited Josephus and David Kimchi among others. Ramírez (eds), Dios Arquitecto (ref. 70), 180. Josephus was cited in numerous places, although Villalpando did not always agree with him. See for example, Villalpando , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 66), 40, 90, 92. Kimchi was quoted at least on pp. 122, 131 and 132. Villalpando referred to the Targum on a number of occasions, e.g. in p. 121. On p. 125 Villalpando introduced the “Rabí Isaac's” opinion saying: “And it is not only the sacred doctors that confirm this interpretation, that everything happened in that house in a figurative way, but also all the profane doctors and the wicked Jews”.

Goldish , Judaism in the theology of Isaac Newton (ref. 4), 91.

Ibid.

For the connections between anti-trinitarianism and Catholic approaches, see Iliffe R. , “Friendly criticism: Richard Simon, John Locke, Isaac Newton and the Johannine Comma”, in Hessayon Ariel Keene Nicholas (eds), Scripture and scholarship in early modern England (Aldershot, 2006), 137–57.

Yahuda 1.1, fol. 1r, and Villalpando , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 66), 10.

Villalpando , El Templo de Salomón (ref. 66), 33.

Yahuda MS 1, fols. 12r–12v.

James Force has tried to make a case for Newton's “walking a middle path between those who might be called absolute literalists and those who read each and every passage as an allegory”. To this end, Force invokes evidence from Yahuda MS 9 and Yahuda MS 1.1. Force, “Newton, the Lord God of Israel and knowledge of nature”, in Popkin R. H. Weiner G. M. (eds), Jewish Christians and Christian Jews (Dordrecht, 1994), 135–7. Reiner Smolinski follows in Force's steps by writing that Newton's rules for interpreting the words and language in Scripture are “characterized by his insistence on a single, obvious or literal sense of the prophecies, yet allows for a kind of ‘third or middle way’ to govern allegorical or nonliteral interpretations when the plain or literal sense contradicts ‘reason’”. Smolinski concludes that Newton “retains a middle way between literalism and metaphor for things confined to earth, yet employs a mystical or anagogical rendition for things that extent into the heavens”. Reiner Smolinski, “The logic of millennial thought: Sir Isaac Newton among his contemporaries”, in Force J. E. Popkin R. H. (eds), Newton and religion: Context, nature and influence (Dordrecht, 1999), 259–89, p. 284.