THE BUILDER AUGUST 1917

THE PILLARS OF THE PORCH
BY BRO. JOHN W. BARRY, GRAND MASTER, IOWA

PART III.

In cut No. 34 is shown the rock beneath the dome. It is the sacred
rock, the threshing floor of Ornan--the spot upon which Abraham was
about to sacrifice Isaac. Under the rock is a large cavern,
believed to be the sepulchre of the Kings of Israel from David to
Hezekiah.

When the very foundations of buildings are no more, the
contemporaneous coins used as money often remain and afford
valuable information. While the Jews coined but little, especially
in the earlier times, yet there are some of value to the matter
under consideration. In 65 A. D. the Jews revolted against their
Roman governors, and A. Eleazer, a Jewish high priest, issued coins
upon which is a representation of the Temple. See cut No. 35, from
Madden's Jewish Coinage. Its value to the question in hand is found
in the fact that it was the work of a Jewish high priest for the
Jews, at a time when the inspiration of the Temple was needed, and
that the temple so shown is in harmony with the buildings
heretofore described. It will be noticed that this Jewish high
priest in preparing a coin that might help inspire his countrymen
to heroic deeds for their liberty, did not show a temple with
pillars projecting above it like twentieth century smokestacks.

There are two other views of the Temple, which on account of their
growing use in lodge work will be given here. In cut No. 36 is
shown Solomon's Temple by Rev. T. O. Paine, of Boston, who has
written and published a most superbly illustrated book on the
subject, showing the Temple in radically different light from any
previous conception of it. You will note that it is wider and wider
toward the top. He claims that, as above shown, it corresponds with
"Holy writ" to the very minutest detail. He makes Jachin and Boaz
eighteen cubits high, and gives even the weight of the metal in the
shafts as thirty tons each. Cut No. 37 shows the Jachin or Boaz as,
he says, they are described in the Bible.

James Ferguson, an eminent architect of London, has issued an
exhaustive work entitled "The Temples of The Jews." He submits
scale drawings of Jachin and Boaz, showing them to have been
eighteen cubits high. To Herod's Temple he gives particular
attention and submits three elaborate drawings of it. One of these
drawings is used in slides showing "The Holy City," and is given
now to make it clear that it is not intended to represent the
Temple of Solomon. though the pillars in its porch are eighteen
cubits high, as in Solomon's. It is seen in cut No. 38. Ferguson is
responsible for the central building only, and for nothing else
shown.

Heretofore attention has been directed to such buildings as were in
point. However, there is another line of evidence entitled to our
highest respect. It is the opinions of Masonic investigators, Bible
students, and architects, each of which classes having considered
Jachin and Boaz worthy of very careful research and painstaking
investigation. Naturally that which appeals to us most strongly is
the ---

OPINIONS OF MASONIC INVESTIGATORS

Eighteen cubits is the height assigned to Jachin and Boaz in "The
Symbols of Masonry," by Jacob Earnst, a Mason of high degree, and
on pages 266 and 267 he continues as follows: "In our rituals we
have heard them referred to as thirty and five cubits in height,
with chapiters o f five cubits, which conveys the idea that they
were forty cubits in height--a very inconsiderable degree of
altitude in proportion to their circumference, and not consistent
with the rules of architecture, and which certainly gives a very
erroneous impression."

Albert G. Mackey, in his "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry," says that
the pillars of Jachin and Boaz are very important symbols. He
devotes seven columns to their discussion; shows that they were
eighteen cubits high, that they were within the porch and supported
the entablature, and adds: "It is evident, from their description
in Kings, that the pillars of the porch of King Solomon's Temple
were copied from the pillars of Egyptian temples." See pages 583 to
587, inclusive. In corroboration of Earnst and Mackey, might be
cited a few other Masonic authorities, thus: Jeremiah Howe, page
416; Reynold's Mysteries of Masonry, page 348; Mackenzie's Royal
Masonic Encyclopedia, page 565; George Kennig, page 561, and, in
short, as I verily believe, all others that ever wrote on the
subject.

BIBLE STUDENTS

Because of the important symbolism and because of the peculiar and
possibly somewhat obscure statement in Chronicles III-15, Jachin
and Boaz have been most attractive subjects to Hebrew students and
commentators on the Bible. While they differ in many particulars
regarding the Temple, yet they all, so far as I could examine, are
agreed that the true height of Jachin and Boaz was eighteen cubits.
Smith's Bible Dictionary (Vol. 1), page 688, puts it as follows:
"The front of the porch was supported, after the manner of some
Egyptian temples, by two great brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz,
eighteen cubits high, with capitals of five cubits more." In like
manner might be cited, confirming eighteen cubits as the true
height, the following: Philip Schaff (Vol. IV), page 2314; J.T.
Bannister's Temples of the Jews, page 107; James Hasting's Bible
Dictionary, page 308; McClintock & Strong's work on the Bible,
pages 725 and 841; William Whiston, Joseph B. Lightfoot, T. O.
Paine, and others beyond the limits of my time or your patience.

ARCHITECTS

No ancient building has been so fruitful a source of discussion
among architects as Solomon's Temple, and though their opinions
vary widely in many particulars, yet as to the true height of
Jachin and Boaz, their views coincide. Eighteen cubits is the
height agreed upon, and James Ferguson, before referred to, who has
given exhaustive study to the Temple of Solomon, submits a scale
drawing showing the height to have been eighteen cubits, and says:
"This height, with the other members, makes the whole design
reasonable and proper." See his "Temples of the Jews," page 157. E.
C. Hakewill, page 55 of his work on the Temple, confirms this view.
Also F. H. Lewis, G. E. Street, R. S. Poole, and in fact all
without exception, so far as I could learn, who have investigated
the subject.

JOSEPHUS

What may be called the direct evidence regarding Solomon's Temple
is confined to Josephus and the Bible. But on the point under
consideration both sources are full, complete, and conclusive. In
"The Antiquities of the Jews," by Josephus, page 251, Book VIII,
Chapter III, the most renowned work of Hiram Abiff is thus
described: "Moreover this Hiram made two hollow pillars, whose
outsides were of brass; and the thickness of the brass was four
fingers breadth, and the height of the pillars was eighteen cubits,
and their circumference twelve cubits; but there was cast with each
of their chapiters lily-work, that stood upon the pillar, and it
was elevated five cubits; round about there was net-work interwoven
with small palms, made of brass and covered the lily-work. To this
was also hung two hundred pomegranates in two rows. The one of
these pillars he set at the entrance of the porch on the right hand
and called it "Jachin," and the other at the left hand and called
it "Boaz."

THE BIBLE

The Bible, the one all-sufficient witness, has been reserved until
the last. The Bible record is in four separate books, and three of
them are so clear as not to admit of a doubt. The fourth, when but
the single verse is read, is not so clear, but in connection with
the other verses of the chapter is equally specific, therefore, for
the better understanding, the verses in connection will be given:

II. CHRONICLES, III-10 TO 15, INCLUSIVE.

"10. And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image
work, and overlaid them with gold.

"11. And the wings of the cherubims were twenty cubits long, one
wing of one cherubim was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the
house, and the other was likewise five cubits, reaching to the wing
of the other cherubim.

"12. And one wing of the other cherubim was five cubits, reaching
to the wall of the house, and the other wing was five cubits also,
joining the wing of the other cherubim.

"13. The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty
cubits, and they stood on their feet and their faces were inward.

"14. And he made a vail of blue and purple, and crimson I fine
linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.

15. And he made before the house two pillars of thirty five cubits
high, and the chapiter that was on the top of EACH of them was five
cubits."

In verse 11, the wings of the cherubim are said to be twenty cubits
long, meaning the united length of the four wings. Again, in verse
13, the wings are given as twenty cubits, but as before, the
meaning is the united length of the four wings. In the same way the
two pillars are given as thirty and five cubits high, meaning, as
in the case of the wings, the united length of the two pillars as
they stood in the porch. The language is very precise. Notice: "Two
pillars of thirty and five cubits high"--not each, but the two
together. And then following immediately this: "And the chapiter
that was on the top of each of them was five cubits high." Where is
the warrant here for the statement so familiar to us all, namely:
"They were each thirty and five cubits in height, adorned with
chapiters of five cubits, or forty cubits in all ?"

At the first blush, there is a slight discrepancy, for if the
pillars were each eighteen cubits high, then would their united
length or height have been thirty six cubits instead of
thirty-five? Hebrew scholars and other investigators have almost
uniformly accounted for this apparent discrepancy as follows: At
the joint of the chapiter and pillar, the chapiter overlaps the
pillar a one-half cubit, making the united length of the pillars,
as measured standing in the porch, appear to be thirty-five cubits.
A few others contend that the pillars were sunk into the base or
foundation, so that when measured standing in the porch their
united height appeared to be thirty-five cubits. It would seem that
a one-half cubit lap at the top would be too much, and it is,
therefore, probable that both contentions are right, except that
the lap at the top was only four or five inches, and the sinking
into a socket at the base about the same, making nine inches or a
one-half cubit. Recent explorations in the Troad carry this
compromise view almost to a demonstration. The Troad, made immortal
by Homer's Iliad, contains the city of Assos, lying a short
distance north of Smyrna, Asia Minor. Here in 1881-2 J.T. Clarke,
in behalf of the Archaeological Institute of America, excavated a
large tomb, corresponding in every detail to the tombs of the kings
at Jerusalem, and dating from the seventh century B.C., and also a
temple contemporaneous with that of Solomon. There is still
standing there a doric pillar, sunk into the foundation and held in
place by lead poured round the base, much as water mains are now
joined. (See reports of the Archaeological Institute of America.)
Assuming that Jachin and Boaz were set this like this Assos pillar,
then is the apparent discrepancy in the Bible fully accounted for
by a column contemporaneous with the Temple of Solomon, and still
standing, at Assos.

However, the height of Jachin and Boaz is given in three other
books of the Bible, and is not mentioned in any other place than as
here indicated. The statement is so clear that no explanation or
outside reference is needed. Hear and weigh this testimony:

FIRST KINGS, VII-15.
"For he cast two pillars of brass of eighteen cubits high apiece,
and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about."

SECOND KINGS, XXV-17.
"The height of one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter
upon it was brass."

JEREMIAH, LII-21 AND 22.
"And concerning the pillars, the height of one pillar was eighteen
cubits, and a fillet of twelve cubits did compass it, and the
thickness thereof was four fingers; it was hollow and a chapiter of
brass was upon it; the height of one chapiter was five cubits, with
network of pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of
brass. The second pillar, also, and the pomegranates, were like
unto these."

CONCLUSION

The foregoing Bible records are so precise, each witness so
confirming the others, that together they must carry conviction to
every one that can believe the evidence of recorded history. But
even were there no Bible records, the circumstantial evidence
adduced is so strong that the main facts would be apparent. For to
the men who could construct such a building as Solomon's Temple
must be accorded full and accurate knowledge not alone of the best
buildings of their time, but of the best building methods as well.
Think of it, here is a building thirty feet wide, ninety feet long,
and forty-five feet high, and from the drawings alone its several
parts are made to size and shape in the mountains and quarries,
and, when assembled, they fit with such perfect accuracy and all is
so well done that the building stands four hundred and nineteen
years, and no doubt would be standing today had it not been
wantonly destroyed in war time. At least contemporaneous buildings
are still standing, and the Dome of Rock, on the site of Solomon's
Temple, has already stood nearly two thousand years. It would,
therefore, be reasonable to conclude that the builders of Solomon's
Temple had full knowledge of the temples on the Nile, and no
building has ever been found there or elsewhere in which the
pillars of the porch were higher than the building. Why then charge
the builders of Solomon's Temple with such a blunder ?

Again, so well was Solomon's Temple constructed, so excellent
architecturally that it was for centuries the type of Grecian
architecture, and was many times duplicated in its main
architectural features. A few contemporaneous buildings remain to
us to this day, as have been shown, at Paestum and other points,
and in no case are the pillars of the porch higher than the main
building, but in every case are in strict accord with the Bible
records of Solomon's Temple, confirming and demonstrating the
proposition that Jachin and Boaz were as given, "eighteen cubits
high apiece."

A little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in
philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
--Bacon.

