If the wall of the Temple was at this period less than 500 feet long, the whole Temple court occupied but about one-third the length of the present Ḥaram area, and less than half its width (comp. The authorities for this period make no mention of the palace of Solomon. 3 that Cyrus gave permission to make the Temple 60 cubits high and 60 cubits broad has probably no connection with its actual dimensions: how the statement arose can now be only conjectured. Nehemiah in rebuilding the city wall followed the lines of the former wall, and it is altogether likely that the old lines were followed in building the walls of the Temple also. It was probably because the building was less ornate that the old men who had seen the former Temple wept at the sight of its successor (Ezra iii. The dimensions of the building were probably the same as those of Solomon's Temple, though the edifice was apparently at first lacking in ornament. The altar was built of unhewn stones in conformity with the precepts of the Law (comp. 22) as saying that the Temple area was enclosed by a wall a plethra, or 500 Greek feet, in length and 100 Greek cubits in breadth, i.e., 485½ × 145½ English feet. Hecatæus, a Greek writer contemporary with Alexander the Great, is quoted by Josephus ("Contra Ap." i. Of the dimensions of this Temple there are given but few data. It is now generally recognized that the representation in the Book of Ezra, that the work was begun immediately upon the accession of Cyrus and was then interrupted by opposition from Israel's neighbors, is unhistorical. The people were aroused to the effort by the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah and in the course of three years the rebuilding was accomplished. In the second year of the reign of Darius Hystaspes (519) the real rebuilding began. 14) declared that all which was offered here was unclean, it is altogether probable that the altar was the same that had been used throughout the Exile, and that the Chronicler's statement is a mistake. 1) declares that Zerubbabel (whom he puts in place of Sheshbazzar, thus placing him twenty years too early) "builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon" but as Haggai (ii. It states also that Sheshbazzar "laid the foundations of the house," but it is doubtful if any building was then done, as the house remained unbuilt in the time of Haggai, twenty years later. The Aramaic document in Ezra relates that the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away were delivered to Sheshbazzar with authority to take them back and rebuild the Temple (Ezra v. The Chronicler, who wrote much of the Book of Ezra, represents Cyrus as issuing a decree for the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem but this assertion is of doubtful authority. With the accession of Cyrus in 538 it became possible-that monarch replacing the old Assyro-Babylonian policy of transportation by a policy of toleration-for the Jews to resuscitate their religious institutions. It is probable, therefore, that, though the building was in ruins, the site of the Temple was used by the poor Hebrews resident in Palestine as a place of worship all through the Exile.
More probably they were on their way to Jerusalem, when the messenger from Mizpah enticed them into that town. No reason is known why at this date men from a distance should go to Mizpah to worship. It is true that Giesebrecht ( ad loc.) argues that the men were bound for Mizpah and not for Jerusalem but if that be so the whole narrative is meaningless. 5 to be mistaken for two months after the city was destroyed a company of men from Samaria, Shechem, and Shiloh came to keep the Feast of Ingathering at Jerusalem.
It is usually supposed that its sacred site was desolate and unused for fifty years, until the accession of Cyrus made the rebuilding of the Temple possible. The Temple of Solomon was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.
0 kommentar(er)
