The Solomonic Temple of Josephus’ Antiquities

Introduction

A member of the priestly caste who came from a distinguished aristocratic family of Jerusalem, Flavius Josephus evinces in all his works the central position that the Jerusalem Temple occupies in Judean culture and tradition. In Judean Antiquities, in particular, he refers to the successive historical forms of the Temple: the tent, the Solomonic Temple, the Post-Exilic Temple, and the Herodian Temple. In this article the focus will be on Josephus’ retelling of the biblical account of the Solomonic Temple’s construction in Ant. 8.61–125, which is based on 1 Kings 5–8 and 2 Chronicles 2–7.

Josephus’ reworking of the biblical material concerning the building of the Solomonic Temple has received relatively little attention from modern scholars. Among those few who deal with the account, most have interpreted the narrative without considering Josephus’ original audience. ¹ This introductory article aims to assist the interested reader by explicating certain aspects of Josephus’ recounting of the biblical story of the Solomonic Temple’s construction, attempting to understand the messages the author wanted to convey to his Roman audience and how this audience may have comprehended them. ²

I will not address the whole of the temple-building narrative; instead, I will limit my comments to Josephus’ remarks on the dating of the Temple complex construction, the detailed description of the sanctuary edifice and appurtenances, the report of Solomon’s prayer, and the dedicatory rituals surrounding the cult site. We will see that Josephus weaves a compelling story by making changes and adding details to the biblical account to further his aim of convincing his readership of the antiquity of the Jerusalem Temple. He presents the opulence of the building, with its sumptuous furnishings and personnel designed to draw attention to the greatness of the Judean God and his worldwide dominion. Josephus also emphasizes the centrality and relevance of the cult site, not only for Judeans but for all nations, hoping thereby to generate sympathy in the Roman readers for the idea that the now-destroyed Temple should be rebuilt.

Chronology of the Temple

Josephus places the construction of Solomon’s Temple within the larger historical continuity of Israel’s existence as a nation as well as human history. ³ After agreeing with 1 Kgs 6.1 and 2 Chron. 3.2 that work on the sanctuary’s edifice started in the second month of Solomon’s fourth regnal year, Josephus adds extra-biblical remarks by calculating the construction of the sacred building in relation to other significant historical events, including the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt (592 years), the arrival of Abram in Canaan from Mesopotamia (1020 years), the Flood (1440 years), and the creation of humankind (3102 years) (Ant. 8.61–62). Except for the Exodus, which happened 480 years before the beginning of the Temple’s construction, according to the MT and LXX L versions of 1 Kgs 6.1, none of these events mentioned by Josephus are supplied with a relative dating in the Hebrew Bible. ⁴

Josephus also synchronizes the start of the construction with some events in Phoenician history, which is also unmentioned in the Bible. He states that the sanctuary began to be built in the eleventh year of Hiram’s reign and dates the laying of the foundation of the sacred building to the inception of Tyre, which took place 240 years earlier (Ant. 8.62). ⁵ This is intriguing information. In his Epitome of Trogus Pompeius (fl. first century BCE), Justin places the founding of Tyre a year before the fall of Troy (18.3.5), which the Parian Marble dates to 1209–1208 BCE. ⁶ By aligning the Jerusalem Temple’s construction with the origins of Tyre, Josephus impresses his Roman audience with the great antiquity of the building, which was raised well before the traditional date for Rome’s foundation in the eighth century BCE. ⁷

Josephus here and elsewhere appeals to the antiquity of the Jerusalem Temple to make it respectable to his audience in Rome. The early history of this institution is noted first in Josephus’ Judean War 6.268-269. There, the author reckons the period of existence of the cult site, from the foundation by Solomon to its destruction by the Romans in 70 CE, as 1,130 years, seven months, and 15 days. In Antiquities, Josephus emphasizes the superiority of the Jerusalem Temple by stating that it was “so ancient and the most famous (οὕτως ἀρχαῖον καὶ διασημότατον) of all those in the inhabited world (τὴν οἰκουμένην)” (Ant. 13.77; cf. 20.49).

Romans tended to be more sympathetic to certain cultures (e.g., Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenicians) around the Mediterranean basin on account of their antiquity. ⁸ For instance, in his speech on behalf of his client Flaccus, Cicero (106 – 43 BCE) praises the antiquity of Athens, whence civilization, learning, religio, agriculture, justice, and laws are thought to have born and to spread across the entire world (Flac. 62; cf. Plin. Ep. 8.24). ⁹ In his Antiquities, Josephus aligns himself with the Eastern historiographic tradition and places the origin of the history and traditions of his people and institutions in a time preceding Greek and Roman history. ¹⁰ In this way, he implicitly indicates that the Temple in Jerusalem precedes any important institution built by those peoples.

The Temple construction

Josephus commences his temple-building narrative with the preparatory measures taken by King Solomon that included, according to the author, a conscripted labor force of 30,000 workers from around Israel (Ant. 8.58). Josephus follows 1 Kgs 5.8–10, 13–14 closely by stating that those men in each three-month period worked in shifts of 10,000 men, laboring one month on “Mount Liban,” where many large cedar and cypress (LXX: pine) logs were to be cut, and two months resting at their homes (Ant. 8.54). A symbol of the opulence and dignity of palaces and temples in Greco-Roman times, cedar and cypress wood were praised for their quasi-eternal durability (cf. Vitr. De arch. 2.9.12-13).

In addition to conscripts for timber work, Josephus’ Solomon recruited 70,000 foreigners living in Israel as carriers of stones and other materials, 80,000 stone-masons, and 3,300 foremen (Ant. 8.59-60). Josephus’ figures accord with MT 1 Kgs 5.13–16 and partially with the LXX, which speaks of 3,600 supervisors. Additionally, 1 Kgs 5.15 alludes to 70,000 “burden bearers,” whose ethnic origins it leaves unidentified.

The large number of workers in both the biblical text and Josephus is likely designed to astonish the reader with the scope and importance of the project. Josephus’ audience, in particular, was familiar with the idea of a colossal project realized by a Near Eastern ruler. For instance, Herodotus tells us that for the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza, 100,000 men worked in shifts of three months, taking 20 years to build it (2.124). By contrast, public construction projects in Imperial Rome could employ less than one-third that number of workers. ¹¹

According to MT 1 Kgs 5.31 (NRSV 5.17), the construction of the cult site itself starts with Solomon’s commanding the stonecutters to quarry large blocks of costly stones to provide a foundation of dressed stone for the Temple. Josephus’ version of this biblical passage emphasizes the complexity, splendor, and beauty of the cult site foundations in a way that seems to indicate it was unequalled in ancient times. He remarks that these “extremely deep” foundations were made of solid stone and capable of resisting the passage of time. These stones, fitted closely together in the ground, served as a base and support for the above structure. “They would effortlessly bear the burden of what was placed upon them and the costly decorations, the weight of which was not to be inferior to that of the other [parts] that were designed for height and breadth of beauty and a graceful magnificence” (Ant. 8.63). ¹²

As to the sanctuary’s construction, Josephus underlines to his audience the remarkable level of technical mastery drawn upon to execute the edifice. He elaborates on 1 Kgs 6.7 and states that the “smooth-surfaced stones fit together so exactly and snugly that it disclosed no trace of a hammer or any other building tool to those inspecting the work” (Ant. 8.69). Josephus also remarks that “all the wood-work joined up so precisely that the fit seemed spontaneous, rather than forcibly achieved by [the use] of tools” (8.69). These editorial observations have nothing to support them in the biblical texts.

Oddly enough, Josephus adds that the edifice was made of “white stone” (λευκοῦ λίθου; Ant. 8.64). This specification does not conform to either the MT or the LXX text as we know it, but it reminds us of Josephus’ description of the Herodian sanctuary’s exterior elsewhere in Antiquities. There, the author characterizes the building as being made of “white and mighty stones” (Ant. 15.392). In War, Josephus speaks of the pilgrims’ dazzlement by the magnificent sight of the Herodian sanctuary that shone imposingly when viewed from afar: “for the foreigners coming to it [the sanctuary] appeared from a distance like a snow-capped mountain; for all that was not plated with gold was of purest white (λευκότατος)” (5.223).

Widely employed in antiquity, white stone reflected the sun’s rays with a fierce brilliance and offered a theophanic experience. White marble, much in demand in the Flavian age (69–96 CE), was prized on account of its semi-translucent character. ¹³ When polished, its light-emitting surface created a shine that would seemed to emanate the ethereal realm of the divine, a striking feature extensively employed in sacred buildings of Late Antiquity. ¹⁴ Josephus’ audience perceived light as “an important dimension of the experience of a divine appearance.” Furthermore, gods often revealed “their power in an atmosphere of light, thus declaring their superiority.” ¹⁵

Josephus gives the sanctuary’s dimensions as 60 cubits (ca. 30 m) in height and length and 20 cubits wide (ca. 10 m). ¹⁶ The edifice was internally split into two rooms; “the adytum” (ἄδυτον) was 20 cubits in length (ca. 10 m), and “the holy sanctuary” (ἅγιον ναόν) was 40 cubits (ca. 20 m) (Ant. 8.64, 71). Josephus’ figures for the sanctuary’s length and width agree with that given in MT 1 Kgs 6.2 // 2 Chron. 3.3. However, MT 1 Kgs 6.2 mentions 30 cubits for the edifice’s height, and the LXX’s version refers to a building 40 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 25 cubits high. For the internal division, 1 Kgs 6.20 specifies that all three dimensions of the “inner sanctuary” (NRSV) measured 20 cubits, whereas 1 Kgs 6.17 refers to the “nave” (NRSV) in front of the inner sanctuary as measuring 40 cubits long.

Curiously, Josephus says that “on top of this [edifice] was raised up another of equal dimensions, so that the total height of the sanctuary was 120 cubits [ca. 60 m]” (Ant. 8.64). This odd and abstruse structure lacks a clear biblical counterpart. It could be conjectured that Josephus’ lofty sanctuary is explained by his inattentive reading of 2 Chron. 3.4, which mentions the sanctuary’s vestibule as being 120 cubits high. ¹⁷ However, Josephus also refers to the vestibule in front of the sanctuary as having the same height (8.65). Étienne Nodet suggests that Josephus’ second structure could be the foundations of the sanctuary, which had dimensions identical to those of the building. ¹⁸

Josephus’ audience in Rome may have been staggered by this otherworldly structure. Perhaps one of the most impressive temples in Josephus’ time was the gigantic Temple of Jupiter Heliopolitanus in Baalbek/Heliopolis (modern Lebanon). With columns reaching a height of 20 meters, the apex of the temple’s pediment was close to 38 meters above the court floor. ¹⁹ The Temple of Jupiter was considered one of the tallest temples in the Imperial Age along with the Herodian sanctuary which Josephus suggests in War 5.207 reached a height of 50 metres. Josephus’ Solomonic sanctuary, however, would exceed both at nearly 60 meters in height.

Given that all sanctuary measurements are multiples of 10 (both in the biblical texts and Josephus’ narrative), Josephus’ audience may have grasped number symbolism in the edifice. In Greco-Roman philosophy, 10 is a perfect number associated with the universe, heaven, and God. Ten represented the universe “because all things are arranged by it both in general and in particular; and because it is the most perfect boundary of number … just as heaven is the receptacle of all things, they called it ‘heaven’” ([Iamblichus] Theologoumena Arithmeticae 80). The number six also figures in the measure, and it is also considered a perfect number. Like 10, it is identified with the universe: “the perfection of the universe falls under the hexad, the virtue of the Creator God” (50). ²⁰ Because of these numbers’ perfection, the Roman architect Vitruvius (first-century BCE) considers six and 10 fundamental to temple architectural design (De arch. 3.1.5-6).

Another puzzling aspect of Josephus’ narrative is his mention of the Temple complex courtyard (Ant. 8.95-98). Although 1 Kgs 6.36 refers to an inner court, and 2 Chron. 4.9 mentions a priests’ court and a great court, which had doors overlaid with bronze, Josephus fashions the Temple’s courts in the image of the cult site of his age, with which his Roman reader may have been familiar from his Judean War. As an apparent apologetic strategy to defend the continuity between the Solomonic Temple and the now-destroyed Herodian Temple, Josephus deliberately harmonizes their main features to legitimate the cult site in Jerusalem and draw attention to the divine plan behind the construction of the first and last version of the Temple. ²¹

Thus, the parapet that encircled Josephus’ Solomonic sanctuary and whose area was reserved for the priests resembled the balustrade surrounding the Herodian sanctuary (8.95; cf. 15.417; War 5.193–194, 226). Outside this court, there was another sacred precinct in the shape of a quadrangle, surrounded by broad porticos that were accessible by tall gates with golden doors, and only those who observed the strict law of purification were allowed to enter here (8.96; cf. 15.417–420; War 5.193-206). ²² Josephus also speaks of a third sacred precinct outside the second court that “was marvelous and surpassed anything that could be told or seen” (Ant. 8.97). According to him, “[Solomon] raised the great, filled-in ravines to the height of 400 cubits, making these equal in height to the summit of the mountain in which the sanctuary was built. As a result, the open-air, outermost sacred precinct was level with the sanctuary” (8.97; War 5.184–187). This precinct was enclosed with a double portico supported by lofty columns of natural stone, and its roofs were of polished cypress panels. All the gates in this area were of silver (8.98; cf. 15.413-416; War 5.190–192).

In agreement with the biblical texts, Josephus invites his Roman audience to set foot into the heavenly realm by drawing attention to the lavish gilding of the sanctuary. After having indicated that the entire sanctuary’s interior, from floor to ceiling, was paneled with wood, he writes that King Solomon embossed the panels with gold so that “the entire sanctuary gleamed and dazzled the eyes of those who entered it with the radiance of gold that struck one from all sides” (Ant. 8.68). In addition to the walls, ceiling, and pavement, the doors of cedar installed between the adytum and the holy place “had been affixed many gold and multi-colored carvings,” and the huge doors placed at the gate of the sanctuary were overlaid with gold (8.71). In other words, “no part of the sanctuary, whether inside or out, was left ungilded” (8.75). 1 Kgs 6.20–22, 31-35 // 2 Chron. 3.4–8 mention that Solomon overlaid the interior of the edifice with “pure gold,” which came, according to 2 Chron. 3.4, from Parvaim (LXX: Pharouaim). 1 Kgs 6.29, 32–35 also speak of ornate carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers in the walls, the doors of the inner sanctuary, and the nave.

In keeping with 1 Kgs 6.23–28; 8.7 // 2 Chron. 3.11–13; 5.8, Josephus specifies two golden objects in the adytum, namely, the ark and the two cherubim whose wings overshadowed the ark and protected it (Ant. 8.73). While 1 Kgs 6.23–24, 28 // 2 Chron. 3.10 speak of two cherubim of olivewood overlaid with gold, Josephus stresses their value by stating that the large cherub figures were of “pure gold” (8.72). ²³ In another place, Josephus refers to David’s donation of 3,000 talents of pure gold for “the inner sanctuary and the chariot of God, the cherubim,” showing that the holiest place within the sanctuary seemed to be the most luminously dominated by gold (7.378).

One can imagine the wonderment Josephus’ description of the impressive appearance of the sanctuary’s interior caused in his audience. Whereas MT 1 Kgs 6.22 links the complete gilding of the sanctuary’s interior with its perfection, Josephus prefers to emphasize the dazzling visual effect of the gold upon those who entered (Ant. 8.68). These comments are similar to those about the Herodian sanctuary in War. Covered in “massive plates of gold,” the exterior of the building astonished both mind and eye: “As soon as the sun was up, it radiated like fire so that anyone straining to look at it would be forced to turn their eyes away as if from the solar rays,” as if this viewing experience indicated the divine glory that lay upon the Temple (War 5.222).

It is worth noting that several other buildings in the early Imperial Age came to be embellished with magnificent displays of gold. ²⁴ Gold-plated cult sites were a characteristic of Zeus-Jupiter temples. Titus Livius (ca. 59 BCE–17 CE) writes that King Antiochus IV built a magnificent temple to Zeus in Antioch with its roof paneled with gold and the walls covered with gilded plates (41.20). The temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill had gilded roof tiles from at least the second-century BCE (Plin. HN 33.18). When the cult site burned down in 80 CE, Domitian used 12,000 talents of gold in the ornamentation of the reconstructed temple’s roof (Plut. Publ. 15.3-5).

Josephus’ readers would have no difficulty in identifying this precious metal with the realm of the gods. Gold was employed as a symbol of the divine in Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures. When Greco-Roman authors depicted the divine, they usually used gold as the proper expression and property of the deity. ²⁵ Ovid (43 BCE–17 CE), for instance, describes the palace of the Sun god as standing high on lofty columns, bright with glittering gold and flaming bronze (Met. 2.1). Statius, Josephus’ contemporary, describes the gilded ceiling of the palace of Domitian, whom he takes as the god Jupiter, as heaven (Silv. 4.2.18–37; cf. Manilius, Astronomica 5.282–292). Josephus shares this understanding when he stresses the impressive use of gold in the Jerusalem Temple to represent the divine sphere (cf. Ant. 7.340).

In an age when the Mediterranean basin was populated by a wide range of deities and cults, temples competed with one another to secure financial assistance, including imperial patronage. “The more impressive the cultic buildings and insignia, the more likely they were to stand out. Making the wealth of a cult visible also placed on display the potency of the divinity in question.” ²⁶ Josephus’ remarks on the Solomonic Temple serve a similar purpose. The grandeur of the cult site is described as a spectacle worthy of the admiration of all, combining a mastery of building technology and an abundance of precious materials; in turn, this magnificence spoke of the mighty deity worshipped within.

Equipping the Temple for worship

Following the biblical texts closely, Josephus offers a descriptive inventory of the bronze, gold, and silver implements manufactured by Solomon and an artisan from Tyre named Cheirom (MT: Hiram; Huram-Abi; LXX: Chiram), whose parents were Israelites (Ant. 8.76). Josephus deviates from the biblical text when mentioning that Cheirom’s father was an Israelite. 1 Kgs 7.13 // 2 Chron. 2.13 identify only the mother as an Israelite. For Christopher Begg and Paul Spilsbury, “Josephus may have felt it inappropriate to have a ‘half-Gentile’ … be the maker of the temple furnishings, and so assigned the craftsman’s father Israelite status.” ²⁷

Strikingly, Josephus paints the sacred objects in such a way that they appear expensive, dazzling, and brilliantly out of proportion. His over-imaginative reconstruction of the hangings is an intriguing example. According to 2 Chron. 3.14, a curtain at the front of the holiest place was made of blue (LXX: hyacinth), purple, crimson (LXX: scarlet), and fine linen, with cherubim, worked into it. Josephus, in turn, omits the cherubim and enhances the text by stating that Solomon hung in front of the doors installed in the adytum and at the gate of the sanctuary “brightly colored (εὐανθεστάτοις) curtains made, not only of hyacinth, purple, and scarlet [material] but also of the most luminous (λαμπροτάτης) and softest (μαλακωτάτης) fine linen (βύσσου)” (8.72, 75).

The word εὑανθής characterizes the distinctiveness of the curtain that is “brightly colored” or “gleaming in bright colors.” Josephus gives special attention to the linen, which he considers the “most luminous and softest.” ²⁸ The term λαμπρός, rendered as brilliant, shining, splendid, or radiant, alludes to the light emitted by the celestial bodies or the resplendence of garments. ²⁹ By underlining the luminosity of the linen, Josephus confers a special theophanic character on the curtain. ³⁰

Josephus’ audience may have associated the description of the curtains here with his earlier accounts of the tent hangings in Ant. 3.111–113, 124, 126 or of the Herodian Temple’s Babylonian curtain in War 5.212. If so, they would have been able to grasp them as a symbol of the cosmos because those colors and materials would fit with the author’s former cosmological interpretation of the curtains. For Josephus, the scarlet indicates the fire, fine linen the earth, the hyacinth the air, and the purple the sea. He explains that “the similarity became evident by the color, and in the case of the fine linen and purple by their origin, given that linen is produced by the earth and purple by the sea” (War 5.213-214; cf. Ant. 3.183).

Josephus’ Solomon now arranges for the bronze items needed in the Temple, including the pillars, the stands and their associated lavers, the altar of sacrifices, and cultic vessels (Ant. 8.77–88). The first of Cheirom’s artistic achievements mentioned is the construction of two prominent decorated bronze pillars stationed at the sanctuary’s doorway, which must have fascinated Josephus’ audience with their monumental proportions and the quantity of bronze used in their casting. In consonance with 1 Kgs 7.15–20, Josephus describes two pillars reaching 18 cubits (ca. 9 m) in height, with a circumference of 12 cubits (ca. 6 m) and an interior thickness of four fingers (Ant. 8.77). The thickness of the hollow metallic pillars appears only in the LXX version of the text. The height of the pillars also differs from the one described in 2 Chron. 3.15, which is a stupendous 35 cubits (ca. 17.5 m) high.

Josephus explains that the intricate capitals of the columns were decorated with lily-shaped motifs, surrounded by an interlaced lattice work of bronze covering the column. From this hung 200 pomegranates in two rows (Ant. 8.78; cf. 1 Kgs 7.20). 2 Chron. 3.16 mentions 100. Placed on the right and left side of the vestibule’s doorpost, the right column was called Iachein (MT: Jachin; LXX: Iachoum) and the left one Abaiz (MT: Boaz; LXX: Baaz) (Ant. 8.78). As with MT 1 Kgs 7.21 and 2 Chron. 3.17, Josephus provides no insight into the actual reasons for the names. LXX 2 Chron. 3.17, in turn, translates the Hebrew names respectively as Uprightness (Κατόρθωσις) and Strength (᾿Ισχύς).

The second artistic production of Josephus’ Cheirom is the “bronze sea” (θάλασσαν χαλκῆν) (Ant. 8.79-80). According to Josephus, the metal sea had the shape of a “hemisphere” (ἡμισφαίριον) and was named “the ‘sea’ because of its size” (8.79). ³¹ This is Josephus’ extra-biblical addition; 1 Kgs 7.23 // 2 Chron. 4.2 mention only a round metal sea without providing the meaning of its name. Josephus locates the sea on the southeast side of the Temple’s courtyard and explains that it held water to purify the priests before performing the ritual sacrifices at the altar (Ant. 8.86-87; cf. 1 Kgs 7.39 // 2 Chron. 4.6).

Josephus notes that the immense reservoir was 10 cubits (ca. 5 m) in diameter, and it had the thickness of a handbreadth; it held 3,000 baths (ca. 72,000 liters), a substantial amount of water by any reckoning (Ant. 8.80). ³² The volume of water informed agrees only with 2 Chron. 4.5 while 1 Kgs 7.26 specifies 2,000 baths. The sea rested on the top of 12 calf figures (probably cast in bronze); of these, “three each were facing in the direction of the four winds (πρὸς τὰ κλίματα τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων)” (Ant. 8.80). Whereas 1 Kgs 7.25 // 2 Chron. 4.4 detail three oxen (LXX Chron.: bull calves) facing north, three facing west (LXX Kgs: seaward), three facing south, and three facing east, Josephus aligns them to the winds without specifying their course.

The half-sphere form of the bronze sea is a puzzling addendum to the biblical account. Josephus’ audience was likely to recognize more quickly than a modern one what could be implied in the Temple’s reservoir. The Greco-Roman conception of the physical world considers a spherical system in which the upper hemisphere holds two light elements, air and fire, whereas the lower hemisphere contains two heavy elements – earth and water. Given this perception, the huge tank could symbolize the lower hemisphere of the physical world that encompasses the sea. ³³ Intriguingly, in Josephus’ symbolic approach to the tent, it is the Holy Place that in part corresponds to the sea (Ant. 3.123, 181).

The information that the bronze sea rested on top of 12 cardinally oriented calf figures is significant. Throughout the temple-building narrative, Josephus attempts to show that the cult site and its furnishings are aligned with the four cardinal points. For instance, he adds to the biblical texts the statement that the front side of the sanctuary edifice was oriented toward the east (ἀνατολήν) (Ant. 8.64). ³⁴ Within the building, Josephus locates the table on which the breads were placed on the north side (βóρειον); the lamps stood on the south (νóτον) side (8.90). Outside the sanctuary, Cheirom set half of the 10 bronze lavers on the left side of the sanctuary that was oriented toward the north (βορέαν ἄνεμον) and the other half on the right, facing southeast (νóτον … τὴν ἀνατολήν) (8.86). 1 Kgs 7.39 also speaks of lavers on the south and north sides of the sanctuary. According to Josephus, the quadrangular court had “lofty gates, each of these was oriented towards one of the four winds (ἀνέμων)” (8.96).

The existence of cult sites orientated in accordance with the cardinal points is attested to, for example, in Agrigento’s Valley of the Temples (Sicily). The Temples of Heracles and Concordia, erected during the sixth and fifth century BCE, respectively, are oriented cardinally, with their façades facing precisely east, whereas the four sides of the quadrangular sanctuary of Asclepius (dated from 400–390 BCE) are aligned with the four cardinal directions. ³⁵ In Book One of his architectural treatise, Vitruvius proposes an ideal city in which the orientations of the streets and lanes should be fixed relative to the cardinal directions of the earth and the regions of the heavens (De arch. 1.6). ³⁶

From that point of view, cult sites cardinally oriented would reproduce the harmony of the universe. In Josephus’ Solomonic Temple, this understanding becomes especially clear when one observes the bronze sea with its 12 calf figures. Not only do they face the points of the compass, but they also suggest the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple in the hemisphere, with calves’ faces projecting into the world along with the four directions.

The following bronze items featured in Josephus’ Temple are the 10 wheeled lavers (Ant. 8.81-86). Josephus departs from 1 Kgs 7.27-39 // 2 Chron. 4.6 by presenting the lavers and their stands as exquisitely crafted objects with artfully intricate designs worthy of admiration. According to him, each laver’s stand was five cubits (ca. 2.5 m) deep, four cubits (ca. 2 m) wide, and six cubits (ca. 3 m) high (Ant. 8.81). Those dimensions agree only with LXX 1 Kgs 7.27. The stand was engraved with animal motifs, including a lion, a bull, and an eagle (8.82). 1 Kgs 7.29 speaks of lions, oxen, and cherubim. ³⁷ Little columns were also carved in relief (8.82). The entire object stood raised on four cast wheels with hubs and rims (8.83). Josephus adds to the biblical text in remarking that “anyone who looked at the fellies of the wheels would have been astonished that they fitted smoothly into the rims” (8.83). The laver rested upon the hands of the animal carvings, “which were fitted so closely together that they seemed to those who saw them to have grown together” (8.84). Each bronze round laver held 40 choeis (ca. 130 liters) of water (8.85; cf. LXX 1 Kgs 7.38). ³⁸ It had a height of four cubits (ca. 2 m), and the rims had the same diameter (8.85). The lavers were for washing the animals offered as sacrifices (8.87; cf. 2 Chron. 4.6).

Josephus also refers to a bronze altar for sacrifices that Cheirom constructed. Josephus describes an enormous altar 20 cubits (ca. 10 m) in length and breadth and 10 cubits (ca. 5 m) in height (Ant. 8.88). Those dimensions agree with 2 Chron. 4.1. Elsewhere, Josephus places the altar “in front of the sanctuary, opposite the door, so that when the door was opened, the altar would be facing one and the sacred rites and the costliness of the sacrifices would be seen” (8.105). There is not a hint of any of this in the biblical account. As with the tent and the Herodian Temple (3.149; War 5.225), Josephus tends to follow the layout found in many Greco-Roman temples where the altar of sacrifice stood on the same axis as the sanctuary’s doors did. In this way, from the innermost chamber, the deity could witness the rituals performed at the altar. ³⁹

Josephus completes the account of Cheirom’s work with a listing of bronze vessels made for use at the altar, including tripod-like altar utensils and shovels along with fashioned basins, hooks, and every kind of vessel (Ant. 8.88). 1 Kgs 7.40 // 2 Chron. 4.11, 16 speak of pots, shovels, and forks. In an extra-biblical comment concerning the luster of the bronze used for the sacred objects, Josephus accentuates the quality of the metal by stating that “its brilliance and beauty is similar to gold” (8.88; cf. 1 Kgs 7.45 // 2 Chron. 4.16). Elsewhere, he records that the bronze captured by King David to make the bronze sea and the washbasins was “better than gold” (7.106). Once again, Josephus attempts to present the high quality of the materials used to produce the Temple’s furnishings and their sheen as evidence of the wealth of the cult site, which was saturated with the presence of the divine.

Consistent with 1 Kgs 7.48, Josephus lists several golden and silver implements and furnishings made by Solomon. In the chamber outside the adytum, the king set up a golden table on which the loaves of God, a lamp, and a golden altar (Ant. 8.89) were placed. Josephus adds up other countless tables, similar to the golden one though of a different style, which had placed on them 2,000 golden and 4,000 silver libation-vessels along with innumerable lampstands for the Temple, which were made following the order of Moses (8.89–90). 2 Chron. 4.8 enumerates 10 tables and 100 basins of gold. 1 Kgs 7.49 // 2 Chron. 4.7 refer to 10 golden lampstands. The Mosaic directive regarding the lampstands mentioned by Josephus has no counterpart in 1 Kings 7 // 2 Chronicles 4.

Additionally, Josephus supplies a fabulous and un-biblical number of metallic vessels and equipment, including 80,000 wine jugs and flat dishes and 100,000 bowls of gold, plus twice as many of silver; 60,000 gold mixing jugs, along with twice this number of silver; 20,000 golden scales, and twice as many of silver; and 70,000 golden censers (Ant. 8.91–92). The list of cultic utensils in 1 Kgs 7.50 // 2 Chron. 4.11 does not include scales, and the other objects acknowledged are not numbered. Josephus inflates the figures to show the richness and grandeur of the Temple, which in turn indicates that the deity worshipped in the cult site was a great and powerful god.

Josephus also briefly touches on the priestly wardrobe. According to him, Solomon made a thousand vestments for the high priests, including “an upper garment reaching to the feet, robes extending from the shoulders, the oracle [the breastplate], and [precious] stones. The crown, however, on which Moses wrote [the name] of God was a single one and has survived down till today” (Ant. 8.93). For the priests, the king fashioned 10,000 garments made of fine linen, with purple sashes for each, and for the Levitical singers, 200,000 robes made of fine linen (8.93–94). The accounts of 1 Kings 7 // 2 Chronicles 4 do not refer to the priestly garments.

Two details stand out in the description. First, Josephus writes that the high priest’s crown made in Moses’ times miraculously survived down to his days. Throughout Antiquities, the high priest’s golden crown is the vehicle for displaying divine glory and acts as specific evidence of God’s presence with the high priest. ⁴⁰ Second, the very high number of priestly garments not only indicates the opulence of the Temple but also evidences a mighty deity who had available to him a multitude of trained personnel engaged in cult service.

According to Josephus, Solomon followed Moses’ instructions and made 200,000 trumpets for the Levitical singers (Ant. 8.94). This detail has no parallel in 1 Kgs 7 // 2 Chron. 4. Num. 10.1–2, indeed, has God telling Moses to make only two silver trumpets. Josephus adds that the king fashioned out of electrum (an alloy of gold and silver) 4,000 musical instruments “invented for the singing of hymns, that are called nablai and kinyrai” (8.94). ⁴¹ In another place, Josephus states that King David was the maker of those stringed instruments and another called the kymbla (cymbal), made of heavy bronze plates (7.305–306). Those instruments listed by Josephus appear together in 1 Chron. 25.1. In those imagined scenes, unrecorded in the biblical account, Josephus wants his intended audience to visualize some of the grandness of God through the lushness of the musical instruments arranged to create a loud but melodious sound that filled every corner of the Temple complex and could take the worshippers to higher realms.

Josephus ends the list of cultic equipment by noting that Solomon fashioned them “richly and magnificently for the honor of God. Holding nothing back, he expended all his ambition on the beautification of the sanctuary and deposited the [above objects] in the treasuries of God” (Ant. 8.95). Under those circumstances, the king fully concluded these great and beautiful building works and dedicatory offerings within seven years (cf. 1 Kgs 6.38). The wealth and eagerness of Solomon allowed him to construct and complete a building of such magnitude suited to God in a short time (8.99). This is Josephus’ embellishment of 1 Kgs 7.51 // 2 Chron. 5.1. Elsewhere, he goes even further by saying that the speedy completion of the enormous work was only possible “with the cooperation of God” (8.130).

The Temple dedicated

The Temple dedication occurred, according to Josephus, after “[Solomon] wrote to the leaders and elders of the Hebrews and directed the entire people to assemble in Jerusalem in order to see the sanctuary and accompany the ark of God into it” (Ant. 8.99). The order was proclaimed everywhere, and, despite certain challenges, in the seventh month “(Athurei)” of the Hebrew calendar, they assembled to participate in the consecration of the cult site. At the same time, the Feast of the Tabernacles was also observed (8.100). The parallel account to this in 1 Kgs 8.1–2 // 2 Chron. 5.2–3 does not mention any obstacle to summoning the people to Jerusalem; the feast is left unnamed.

Josephus explains that the extravagant event of dedication begins with transporting the ark, the tent raised by Moses, and the cultic equipment to the sanctuary (Ant. 8.101; cf. 1 Kgs 8.3–4 // 2 Chron. 5.4). Josephus elaborates 1 Kgs 8.5 // 2 Chron. 5.6 and adds that the processional entry into the Temple saw Solomon leading the way with sacrifices, while the Levites and all the people followed, sprinkling the road with libations and the blood of numerous victims (8.101). Josephus invokes the ominous and inscrutable atmosphere of the scene when stating that a limitless amount of incense burned by the participants filled the surrounding air and its sweetness wafted to those a great distance away. This caused the people to think that “God was present and, in accordance with human opinion, was taking up residence in the place that had been just built and consecrated for him” (8.102). 1 Kgs 8 // 2 Chron. 5 do not mention the use of incense during the ark’s procession to the Temple. For Begg and Spilsbury, Josephus’ addition of the incense “heightens the solemnity and opulence of the occasion.” ⁴²

Conforming to 1 Kgs 8.7 // 2 Chron. 5.8, Josephus writes that the ark that contained Moses’ stone tablets was brought to the adytum by the priests and placed between the two golden cherubim. He also adds that the ark was entirely covered by “a kind of tent and vaulted roof (θόλῳ)” (Ant. 8.103). This extra-biblical information is striking. Given that the adytum elsewhere in Antiquities signifies heaven (3.123, 181), the domed roof could evoke in the minds of Josephus’ audience the vault of heaven, God’s dwelling place (cf. 8.114). Literary accounts of domes as vaults of heaven are scattered throughout the Imperial Age. Dio Cassius (ca. 150-235 CE) writes that the vaulted roof of Hadrian’s Pantheon resembled the “vault of the sky” (53.27). In another place, he notes that the ceilings of some rooms of Septimius Severus’ palace were painted like the starry sky (77.11.1–2). Philostratus (ca. 170-245 CE) similarly describes a Babylonian palace whose dome, roofed with sapphire, imitated the blue sky, and in the heights of which were set up images of the gods (V A 1.25.3). ⁴³

In fact, more than just the place where the ark was located seemed to have cosmological connotations. Josephus’ arrangement of the furniture within the Holy Place, including the lampstand, the table, and the golden incense-altar, “in the same positions they occupied when they were situated in the tent” (Ant. 8.104), indicates that they could be read in cosmic terms, as he did the furnishings in the tent (3.144–146, 182) and Herodian Temple (War 5.217–218).

If such symbolic interpretation is unambiguous in the Temple’s prototype and in its last version, the Herodian Temple, why then does Josephus not explicitly read the Solomonic Temple in cosmic terms? Josephus’ “failure” to explicitly allude to the cosmic aspect of this cult site does not indicate that he disregards this version of the building. Considering both that Josephus first describes the Herodian Temple in War and his view of the Solomonic Temple as a predecessor that embodies the same claims of other structures that had been located on the same site, it is possible that Josephus does not feel a need to describe Solomon’s Temple as a symbol of the cosmos anew in Antiquities—the War’s backstory (cf. Ant. 1.6). ⁴⁴

1 Kgs 8.10 reports that a cloud filled the sanctuary after the priests came out of the Holy Place. In 2 Chron. 5.11, the priests came out of the Holy Place, and the Levitical singers praised the Lord in unison. A few verses later, we have Solomon saying that “the Lord has said that he would reside in thick darkness” (6.1). In Josephus’ colorful version of the event, the cloud is “neither dark nor filled with rain as in the winter season, but rather diffused and mild,” and it made its way into the building (Ant. 8.106). ⁴⁵ The dense cloud blinded the eyes of the priests, who did not see one another. The magical effect on the priests led them to reason that “God was descending into the sacred precinct and was willing to dwell in it” (8.106).

Josephus writes that while the priests were occupied with this thought about the divine manifestation in the sanctuary, Solomon addresses God in prayer with philosophical overtones: “We know … O Master, that you have an everlasting house, in those things you have devised for yourself, namely the heaven, the air, the earth, and the sea; you are spread throughout all these things but are not encompassed by them” (Ant. 8.107). While God moves freely through the basic elements of nature from which he made the universe, he cannot be enclosed by them. ⁴⁶ This is Josephus’ editorial addition to 1 Kgs 8.29 // 2 Chron. 6.20 that mention only heaven as the place where God dwells.

Aware of God’s nature, Josephus’ Solomon says that he has dedicated the sanctuary for the deity so that from it, the people could send up “prayers into the air,” sacrifices, and hymns. Thus, the worshippers would be convinced that God is “present and not far distant.” For as God “look[s] down upon everything and hear[s] everything,” he does not “cease to be near to everyone.” Instead, to each one who consults God, he is “present night and day as a helper” (Ant. 8.108). The three collective rituals of prayers, sacrifices, and hymns for the building of the Temple have no biblical equivalent. 1 Kgs 8 and 2 Chron. 6 refer only to the cult site, which is the primary place where the prayers are channeled to God in heaven. Josephus seems to echo the universalistic thrust of Solomon’s prayer of dedication found in 1 Kgs 8.41-43 // 2 Chron. 6.32–33, passages that refer in turn to the prayers offered by the foreigners in the Temple. ⁴⁷ Josephus will elaborate on this topic in Ant. 8.116-117.

Josephus’ Solomon recognizes the imperfection of the Temple as a residence for God, but he asks the deity to “send forth a certain portion of [his] spirit (πνεύματος) to the sanctuary and cause it to dwell there, so that you may appear to be with us on earth. Now for you … to whom the whole vault of heaven and everything that is beneath it is but a meager dwelling, this is no extraordinary sanctuary” (Ant. 8.112, 114). ⁴⁸ This portion of Solomon’s prayer that mentions God’s spirit (πνεῦμα) dwelling in the Temple is Josephus’ editorial addition to 1 Kgs 8 // 2 Chron. 6, and it has strong Stoic nuances. For the Stoics, the universe is considered a single body, a living organism (ζῷον), and the element that holds the whole system together is called breath or pneuma (πνεῦμα). It is composed of air and fire and is spread through the world and its soul. Thus, the pneuma is recognized by the Stoics as being God. ⁴⁹

Josephus’ identification of pneuma with God in his biblical paraphrase of Solomon’s prayer is noteworthy. Over the course of Antiquities, Josephus strives to present to his readers the distinctive nature of the Judean deity. God is portrayed as the only powerful and Most High God, the father and origin of all, the creator of things human and nonhuman. God has dominion over the whole cosmos and human affairs, and everything moves in accordance with his will (1.27, 31–34, 72, 155; 3.91; 10.277–279; 11.55; 12.22; 20.89). By describing God thus, Josephus indirectly refutes a polemical misconception about God that was commonplace in Greco-Roman thought, namely, the view that the native god of the Judeans had power only within a circumscribed geographic area. ⁵⁰

Josephus then proceeds to the final part of Solomon’s prayer, underlining the universal characterization of the Temple (Ant. 8.116-117). The author has already briefly touched on this topic in Ant. 8.108, which is based on 1 Kgs 8.41-43 // 2 Chron. 6.32-33. Intriguingly, Josephus keeps silent about the six other petitions made by Solomon in 1 Kgs 8.31-53 // 2 Chron. 6.22-39 and has the king’s prayer request on behalf of foreigners as the culmination of the supplication.

From the words Josephus attributes to Solomon, we learn that the Solomonic enterprise was not only the nerve center of the worship and national identity of ancient Israel, but also the place where everyone could look to as the beating heart of faith in God in the world: “I do not, however, ask for this help from you for the Hebrews alone when they go astray. Rather, even if some should come from the ends of the inhabited world and from any country and turn to God in prayer and earnestly beseech that they obtain some good, be attentive and give [this] to them” (Ant. 8.116; cf. 1 Kgs 8.41–43; 2 Chron. 6.32–33). Josephus’ Solomon concluding utterance is an unequivocal message that the invitation for foreigners to worship in the Temple is a way of showing that the “[Hebrews] are not inhumane by nature nor ill-disposed to those who are not compatriots. Rather, we wish that your help and the benefit of good things be common to all” (8.117). ⁵¹ This is Josephus’ alternative for 1 Kgs 8.43 // 2 Chron. 6.33, which present Solomon asking God to hear the foreigner’s prayer so that all peoples of the earth may know God’s name and fear him.

Solomon’s prayer is not the only instance in Antiquities in which Josephus adds his own accents to the biblical narrative to convince his public of the universal character of the Temple. With the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple under Zerubbabel, Josephus again insists that everyone was invited to venerate God in the cult site, even the Samaritans, the Judeans’ bête noire (11.87). The openness of the Jerusalem Temple is particularly evident in War. In several places, Josephus shows that although Judeans were prevented from worshipping and offering sacrifices at other cult sites, foreigners were encouraged to show piety in their Temple. ⁵² When referring to the killing of the chief priests Ananus and Jesus by the Idumeans in the context of the civil strife in Jerusalem in the 60s CE, Josephus tells us that they “had worn the sacred clothing, leading the rituals of worldwide scope (τῆς κοσμικῆς θρησκείας), and been reverenced by those from many parts of the inhabited world (τῆς οἰκουμένης)” (War 4.324). ⁵³

The universalistic thrust of Solomon’s prayer in Ant. 8.116-117 was Josephus’ way of directing his audience’s attention to the universal reach of the rituals performed within the cult site. With the ruined Herodian Temple, Josephus probably also has a more ideological motive in enhancing the cult site for his Roman readers. Despite its use in the past as a headquarters for the rebels fighting against the Roman soldiers, Josephus emphasizes the universality of the Temple and the benefits of the services once performed there in the hope that the cult site would win the favor of the Romans again and be restored soon.

Having concluded his prayer, Josephus’ Solomon offered sacrifices to God, covering the altar with unblemished victims (Ant. 8.118). The king recognized God’s acceptance of the sacrifice when “fire [fell] down from the air upon the altar in the sight of all, snatched away and consumed the entire sacrifice” (8.118). When this divine manifestation occurred, “the people concluded that this disclosed that God’s residence was to be in the sanctuary, they gladly paid homage, falling on the ground” (8.119). After this event, Josephus’ Solomon encouraged the people to praise God and offered sacrifices for himself and the people in the number of 12,000 calves and 120,000 sheep (8.120–122).

Josephus’ conclusion of Solomon’s prayer differs slightly from the prayers recorded in 1 Kgs 8 // 2 Chron. 7. Josephus, for instance, omits the information in 2 Chron. 7.1-3, which states that after the fire came down from heaven and consumed the sacrifices, “the glory of the Lord filled the temple.” While Josephus focuses his attention on the central role played by Solomon in the sacrifices, 1 Kgs 8.62 // 2 Chron. 7.4 have both the king and the people performing the rituals together. In addition, Josephus’ figures for the sacrifices agree only partially with the biblical texts. While the number of sheep sacrifices remains the same, 1 Kgs 8.63 // 2 Chron. 7.5 have 22,000 bovine sacrifices.

The extravagance and wealth of the sacrifices may have intrigued Josephus’ audience. Those huge figures are rare in the Imperial Age; Michael MacKinnon estimates, for example, a number of 20,000–50,000 sacrifices in Rome per year. ⁵⁴ In an exceptional episode, Suetonius tells us that in the first three months of Caligula’s principate, the Romans sacrificed more than 160,000 animals (Calig. 14).

In the spirit of festivity and gratefulness, Josephus concludes his colorful recounting of Solomon’s temple-building account. The author alters the concluding words of 1 Kgs 8.66 // 2 Chron. 7.10 to write that the Feast of the Tabernacles was “splendidly and magnificently celebrated in front of the sanctuary” (Ant. 8.123). After 14 days of celebration, “the people had enough of these things and nothing was left undone of piety towards God,” and “they made their journey with joy and glad amusements, singing hymns to God, so that in their enjoyment they all effortlessly covered the distance to their homes” (8.124). Josephus reminds the reader of the cult site’s grandeur when he states that the priests who had brought the ark into the sanctuary and beheld its “size and beauty” returned to their respective cities (8.125).

Conclusion

Josephus’ narrative, although it largely parallels the Kings-Chronicles texts, has undergone a lengthy editorial process that aims to accentuate to his Roman audience, inter alia, the antiquity of the Judean cult site in Jerusalem. Josephus takes the intended reader to a time much longer ago than the building of any Roman cult site and tries his best to demonstrate that the Judean people and their institutions go back to a distant past. While the Herodian Temple was perhaps the best-known version of the Jerusalem cult site in the Imperial Age, Josephus shows in Ant. 8.61–125 that the Solomonic Temple, created about a thousand years prior, laid a strong foundation for the later building’s greatness.

In his desire to recover the past glory of the Solomonic Temple for his Roman audience, Josephus has considerably enhanced the cult site’s features, as described in the biblical texts. From the Temple complex’s foundation to the sanctuary, including its cultic objects and decorations, Josephus invites his audience to picture an elaborate and costly cult site with lavish and sophisticated furnishings that equals the wonders of the ancient world, all saturated with the presence of the divine. Josephus’ rhetorical flourishes mark the perfection of God’s Temple through his use of an architectural language that extols the ideal symmetry and proportion of the structure, which resembles the harmony of the cosmos. In this way, Josephus effectively captures, in much of his narrative, the spirit of his age, its values and conventions, and the understanding of architecture prevalent in the Imperial Age.

In Josephus’ Antiquities, the Solomonic Temple is also portrayed as a major symbol of God’s power. As observed throughout the narrative, the Temple was intended to reinforce God’s sovereignty, an outstanding display of the deity’s supreme power, capable of mobilizing all the finest materials, workers, and knowledge required to create a cult site of an unparalleled scale and magnificence. Consequently, the Jerusalem Temple emerges from Antiquities as the central venue of Judean worship and an institution that unifies worshippers who came from all corners of the world to join in the veneration of the Most High God.

One of the most intriguing features of Josephus’ Solomonic Temple is its similarity to the Herodian Temple. Josephus intertwines many of the characteristics of the latter cult site with its first version in Jerusalem, including the sanctuary’s dimensions, the curtains, and the courts. By incorporating the features of the Temple of his day, Josephus establishes an essential continuity between the Solomonic Temple and the destroyed Herodian Temple.

By the end of his recounting of the biblical story of the birth of the Jerusalem Temple, Josephus’ audience would realize that the narrative is far more than an obituary of the most important Judean institution, whose last, famous version was razed to the ground by Roman troops in 70 CE. Writing 20 years after this tragic event, the narrative embodies Josephus’ deepest hope, namely that the cult site will soon be restored. To this end, the author evokes the Temple’s past glory and its relevance for the world as a gesture to draw Roman support for the implementation of this enterprise.