New-York tribune., 1886-05-23
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

s,u uOMoN.s TEMPLE AND CAPITOL. ARK OF THE
i,y TIMOTHY OrIs PAINE. IL d. In four parts 10
by H. pp. 24O Boston and New-iork: Houshton
Mian 4 Co.
This elaborate work is the development and
completion of cailier work ssued by the anthor IN
,961 DR. Paine Is the Professor OF Hebrew In the
swedenbogan theological School OF Boston aud pastor
OF vwedcnhorgian church at Elmwood little village
about twentyh five miles from that city, where nc 'as
resided for thirty years and whore he "a AL" I" SUSTAIN
n sor; OF patrarchal relation 10 the entire comuni'
The story OF the study and patient labor bestowed 'or
thirty three years upon book reads ike lear r"'
the biographies of Casaubon or ERASMUS WIN NoN
10 lis preparation he mastered 1ormlua"e arm! "
languages in .udng the hieroeyphs OF Egypt anu III"
cuneiform writing af Assyria. HOW thoro"smy n'
aooujred the art Of architectural drawing Is seen III he
,lans and plates with which his book Is profuseiy
iuns,ro,od and which been reproduced ny hoto
.raph, process ses directly from lis zen and INK draw
ings Externally, the work is one OF the hhes'
specimens Typography issued from the American
press
The Temple was the great objective centre or the
Hebrew poty: the meeting point OF the Jews patriot
ism and devotion at his Cathedral and his state
House and reproduce with lis sacred and symDoh'
details the of the Christian stu lent isa task 'h
the interest of IN ntecen faith ana Of sound historic
consciousness. This task. in common with numerous
rredee essors Professor Paine has undertaken ana
carried on for a generation. with the temple he has
treated The tabernacle in the Wilderness the Ark OF
Noah and the Capitol Kings house OF solomon, as
Developments from a common tyres and he has HpPnci
10 each OF them the patient aud nlnute rtsearrh
which has gone to the Illustration Of the tenn To- AS the
author claims a discoverer and 10 have ovcrtinei
all peconceved notions to the form OF the temple
we should he Justified in expecting from him some
statement or summary OF the present state OF the
question and Of the points at which he takes ssne with
his fellow scholars This we do not find We notice
little reference TO The lahors or conclusions OF others VINO
have worked the same field and the lack oi cloai
summarizing is an important defect in the work. The
mass Of details which is compelled to wade through
I'm order to reach the authors conclusions is rendered
even more bcwderns by the complicated system OF
reference signs.
Tie first tempe that of Solomon, destroyed by
nchadnezzar II 6 after It's dedication In the
year $50 B c. the exied Jews returned from Babylon
and began rebuilding thcr temple the second year after
ther return This temple completed after eighteen
yc,rs II was Larger than the first hut inferior III
slendor Between The destruction of the first edlhce
and the foundation OF the second occurred the vision OF
Ezekiel portrayed in his prophecy tchap~rs x -xliii
The corner stone Of Professor Panes theory set at
this point and here the most serious criticism Will be
concentrated He holds that the temple seen by Ezekiel
in his vision was soomons ana claims accordingly that
from the two OF Kings and from the rOI heces OF
Jeremiah and Ezekiel and from no other sources all the
means are furnished for complete restoration of this
house. hat is not stated IN one book Is found III
another. That tho 1Onr supplement edcu Olncr anu
perfectly. Commonly a form which is minutely
described in Kings is barely mentioned in Ezekiel and
vice versa Materials mostly given in Kings forms
OF in the greatest numbers III Ezekiel In
Kings the measures begin the inside and proceed ont
ward in Ezekiel the process reversed The height OF
the temple given Kings ana its length and width
In Ezekiel Professor Paine's restoration, therefore.
rests on the ton that the prophetic vision OF
Ezekiel supplies the details omitted in the historic
record OF Kings.
This combination of historic statement with the
rcve OF prophetic ecstasy and the assumption o'
an equal value attaching TO each basis Of archl-
,ec.ural and mathematical statene t, will naturally
provoke CHALLENGE especially in the light OF Professor
Tancs assertion iust quoted. that forms and
greatest number III the vision. rhis theory
Is new. Tie hstorcocral school Of prophetic i'll
depreciation which resolved EzeRels vision into a
rrOsaic description OF the details Of SOlOnon's temple.
was represented long ago by GIotus and Lowth. has
found later advocates in Grunesen, Bamer Iinck md
Bottcner and has been rejected by the majority OF
mo ern Old Testament scholars, including the whole
body Of the American reviSers. No matter how highly
we NAV value the uterances of the prophets in their
moments Of rarture, few even OF the most devout
students OF prophecy disposed to press these utter
minute detail or 10 conceive that sUch ltera
ncss was demanGod bv the spirit and purpose OF
prophecy. The seer disccrns great drifts OF the future
pivotal crises in national deveO ment it is vision OF
broad Iather than OF minor details and Is con
highly wrought pOetlcaI TERMS Whlch
OF all he deemed Trustworthy precise statements OF mum
lers of measurements. Moreover il Is not possible
10 evade the question how much the pecuhaI bias OF the
school OF theology represented by Dr. Paine mas TO do
with tie adoption OF theory like this. Prophetic
vision is the Cornerstone o; SwoieubOrgIAnism 1t
in,errcts Scripture in the light OF Apocalypse rather
than o history; and its iavorite doctrines Of
spoudonces and of inner of Scripture inter
lrcted by ths revelations of tend to attach
exaggerated emphasis TO details thus derived.
As regards these measurements vital question at
once presents itself to the standard employed. In
Lzchicls vision the angel measures with reed.
Tanng the reed at BabyonaL cubits e.. Ten feet
si1 incncs. the side OF Il outer court according To
E1ekies measurement would he within few feet OF an
English mile and square would therefore Include
considerably than the whole OF the city OF
Jerusalem. the length OF the reed is clearly specified
six cuhit- and eubits and reeds carefully distin
eOisAed. Professor Paine was OF aware Of this
difficulty and doubtless has resolved it his salts
faction but 50 tar discoer it is not stated
discussed in his pages. The word reed does not
in the index although used repeatedly in the body
OF the We have representations OF three cubit
rules. of which Professor Paine discovered the
edse OF an Egyptian scribe's palette In the Boston
Museum; and page 3, part l. a herOglyph OF the
cuhit small cubit, equal 10 l772 inches; but the
difficulty which other scholars have found in rccociiEs
the measurement 10y the reed with the actual OF the
temple site receives notice and no discussion.
Returning now TO the general plan OF the work, the
author claims that the Ark Oi the Flood. the snatc
Tabernacle, the Temple OF Solomon and the Kings
House conform TO a common type and Illustrate each
other; and that certain forms and proportions are
repeated III them all. far the tabernacle anG the
temple al least concerned this generally admitted
First. them as TO toe temple 1t Is made up ~ Of "a cen
tral house, usually thought CT and called the temple,
Standing in It's little court 80 feet square. with small
thrccstory houses each 81 ic, which drawing
Icsemblc tiers OF cuOical blocks These the cham
bers of the priests and musicians and the storehouses
the priests tithes. (2) The coIr which is COO
feet square containing the brazen resting the
backs OF and the altar and entered by three gates
The 900 feet square, having within self