Searching for the Temple of King Solomon - Biblical Archaeology ...

Searching for the Temple of King Solomon
For centuries, scholars have searched in vain for any remnant of Solomon’s Temple. The fabled Jerusalem sanctuary, described in such exacting detail in 1 Kings 6, was no doubt one the most stunning achievements of King Solomon in the Bible, yet nothing of the building itself has been found because excavation on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, site of the Temple of King Solomon, is impossible.
Fortunately, several Iron Age temples discovered throughout the Levant bear a striking resemblance to the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. Through these remains, we gain extraordinary insight into the architectural grandeur of the building that stood atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount nearly 3,000 years ago.
The black basalt ruins of the Iron Age temple discovered at ’Ain Dara in northern Syria offer the closest known parallel to the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. Photo: Ben Churcher.
As reported by archaeologist John Monson in the pages of BAR, the closest known parallel to the Temple of King Solomon is the ’Ain Dara temple in northern Syria. Nearly every aspect of the ’Ain Dara temple—its age, its size, its plan, its decoration—parallels the vivid description of the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. In fact, Monson identified more than 30 architectural and decorative elements shared by the ’Ain Dara structure and the Jerusalem Temple described by the Biblical writers.
From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern Westexamines the relationship between ancient Iraq and the origins of modern Western society. This free eBook details some of the ways in which ancient Near Eastern civilizations have impressed themselves on Western culture and chronicles the present-day fight to preserve Iraq’s cultural heritage.
The ’Ain Dara temple and the Biblical Temple of King Solomon share very similar plans. Images: Ben Churcher.
The similarities between the ’Ain Dara temple and the temple described in the Bible are indeed striking. Both buildings were erected on huge artificial platforms built on the highest point in their respective cities. The buildings likewise have similar tripartite plans: an entry porch supported by two columns, a main sanctuary hall (the hall of the ’Ain Dara temple is divided between an antechamber and a main chamber) and then, behind a partition, an elevated shrine, or Holy of Holies. They were also both flanked on three of their sides by a series of multistoried rooms and chambers that served various functions.
Even the decorative schemes of ’Ain Dara temple and the temple described in the Bible are similar: Nearly every surface, both interior and exterior, of the ’Ain Dara temple was carved with lions, mythical animals (cherubim and sphinxes), and floral and geometric patterns, the same imagery that, according to 1 Kings 6:29, adorned the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible.
It is the date of the ’Ain Dara temple, however, that offers the most compelling evidence for the authenticity of the Biblical Temple of King Solomon. The ’Ain Dara temple was originally built around 1300 B.C. and remained in use for more than 550 years, until 740 B.C. The plan and decoration of such majestic temples no doubt inspired the Phoenician engineers and craftsmen who built Solomon’s grand edifice in the tenth century B.C. As noted by Lawrence Stager of Harvard University, the existence of the ’Ain Dara temple proves that the Biblical description of Solomon’s Temple was “neither an anachronistic account based on later temple archetypes nor a literary creation. The plan, size, date and architectural details fit squarely into the tradition of sacred architecture from north Syria (and probably Phoenicia) from the tenth to eighth centuries B.C.”
Gigantic footprints belonging to the resident deity were carved at the temple’s entrance. Photo: A.M. Appa.
Certain features of the ’Ain Dara temple also provide dramatic insight into ancient Near Eastern conceptions of gods and the temples in which they were thought to reside. Carved side-by-side in the threshold of the ’Ain Dara temple are two gigantic footprints. As one enters the antechamber of the sanctuary, there is another carving of a right foot, followed 30 feet away (at the threshold between the antechamber and the main chamber) by a carving of a left foot. The footprints, each of which measures 3 feet in length, were intended to show the presence (and enormity) of the resident deity as he or she entered the temple and approached his or her throne in the Holy of Holies. Indeed, the 30-foot stride between the oversize footprints indicates a god who would have stood 65 feet tall! In Solomon’s Temple, the presence of a massive throne formed by the wings of two giant cherubim with 17-foot wingspans (1 Kings 6:23–26) may indicate that some Israelites envisaged their God, Yahweh, in a similar manner.
FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.
First Name:*
Last Name:*
Email Address: ** Indicates a required field.
If you don’t want to receive the Bible History Daily newsletter, uncheck this box.
Very intereseting. But the temple at Tell Ain Dara does not prove the existence of the temple of king Salomon. On the contrary, the writer of Kings may well have invented its description based on the real Tell Ain Dara temple. If that were the case, the coincidences would not be striking, but completely expected. Without any archeological evidences, it is the simplest and most economical conclusion, isn’t it?
The similarity of another temple to Solomon’s temple only proves that the ability to build such a temple was available at the time.
There must have been the first temple, otherwise it could not have been destroyed by the Babylonians.
Why is there no archeological evidence? Not because there is no archeological access to Temple Mount, but because it was not built on Temple Mount. it was further south but still north of the City of David just outside the present city wall of present day Jerusalem.
The Temple Mount area was the Roman fort Antonio. The building at the north west corner was a watchtower and barracks for the officers. The main stone plateau was the barracks square. It is the same size as many other Roman forts around Europe.
Want more Bible history?
All-Access Pass
All-Access Pass
Dig into the world of the Bible with a BAS All-Access membership. Combine a one-year tablet and print subscription to BAR with membership in the BAS Library to start your journey into the ancient past today!
Very intereseting. But the temple at Tell Ain Dara does not prove the existence of the temple of king Salomon. On the contrary, the writer of Kings may well have invented its description based on the real Tell Ain Dara temple. If that were the case, the coincidences would not be striking, but completely expected. Without any archeological evidences, it is the simplest and most economical conclusion, isn’t it?
The similarity of another temple to Solomon’s temple only proves that the ability to build such a temple was available at the time.
There must have been the first temple, otherwise it could not have been destroyed by the Babylonians.
Why is there no archeological evidence? Not because there is no archeological access to Temple Mount, but because it was not built on Temple Mount. it was further south but still north of the City of David just outside the present city wall of present day Jerusalem.
The Temple Mount area was the Roman fort Antonio. The building at the north west corner was a watchtower and barracks for the officers. The main stone plateau was the barracks square. It is the same size as many other Roman forts around Europe.