Advertisement

Temple of Solomon

  • Tessa MorrisonEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

In the 1580s, two Spanish Jesuit priests, Father Jerome and Juan Bautista Villalpando, began to work on a collaborative scriptural exegesis of the Book of Ezekiel. Prado instigated the project and Villalpando, an architect, was commissioned to complete the commentary on chapters 40–43, which contained the architectural description of the Temple of Jerusalem. The project was financed by the Spanish King Philip II for over 20 years. In 1592, both priests moved to Rome to complete the project. The project had many problems from the beginning, as Villalpando and Prado disagreed about the design and the importance of Solomon’s Temple. Prado believed that Ezekiel’s Temple was a Temple of the future and not Solomon’s Temple. He claimed that the architecture of the precinct of Solomon’s Temple followed the description from the twelfth-century Rabbi Moses Maimonides, whose ground plan was asymmetrical, whereas Villalpando believed that Ezekiel’s Temple was the Temple of Solomon, and that the precinct of the Temple was highly symmetrical and represented the microcosm of the macrocosm – the earthly image of the heavens. However, Prado died in 1595 after the first volume had been completed, and Villalpando found himself in charge of the entire project. In 1604 Villalpando published a further two volumes. One of these volumes was entirely dedicated to the architecture of the Temple of Solomon as described by Ezekiel. This volume was entitled in Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis ac templi Hierosolymitani (Ezekiel’s explanation and the preparation of the cities and of the Temple of Jerusalem), and it stimulated a heated debate almost instantaneously that lasted for 150 years. It was either heavily criticized or profoundly praised. This debate was not only a religious one. There were commentaries from architects, professors of astronomy, scientists, and laypeople. This debate was about the religious and the architectural and mathematical representation of the building. The text of Ezekiel was problematic; it is vague and has contradictory measurements, and the entire precinct of the Temple is not described. This chapter considers the 150 years of debate that Villalpando began, which bought a new mathematical approach to the reconstruction of the Temple.

Keywords

Solomon’s temple Sacred architecture Juan Bautista Villalpando John Greaves 

References

  1. Anonymous (1726) Advertisment. Mist’s Wkly J issue 67 (August 6)Google Scholar
  2. Cappel L (1657) Chronologia sacra. In: Walton B (ed) Biblia sacra polyglotta. LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Goldmann N (1696) Vollständige anweisung zu der civil bau-kunst, 2nd edn. WolfenbüttelGoogle Scholar
  4. Greaves J (1646) Pyramidographia. LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Jones I (1655) The most notable antiquity of Great Britain vulgarly called Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain. LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Josephus (1963) Jewish antiquities. William Heinemann Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Maimonides M (1949) The code of Maimonides. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  8. Morrison T (2008) Villalpando’s sacred architecture in the light of Isaac Newton’s commentary. In: Kim Williams (ed) Nexus: architecture and mathematics VII. Basel, pp 79–91Google Scholar
  9. Morrison T (2010) The body, the temple and the Newtonian man conundrum. Nexus Netw J 12:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morrison T (2011) Isaac Newton’s Temple of Solomon and his reconstruction of sacred architecture. Springer, BaselCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Morrison T (2014) The origins of architecture: an English sixteenth to eighteenth century perspective. Common Ground, ChampaignCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morrison T (2016) Isaac Newton and the Temple of Solomon: an analysis of the description and drawings and a reconstructed model. McFarland, JeffersonGoogle Scholar
  13. Newton I (c 1670s–1680s) Untitled treatise on revelation (Yahuda Ms 3). Unpublished manuscript. National library of Israel, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  14. Newton I (c 1680) Miscellaneous notes and extracts on the temple, the fathers, prophecy, church history, doctrinal issues, etc. (Yahuda 14), unpublished manuscript, Jerusalem. National Library of Israel, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  15. Newton I (Mid 1680–early 1690s) Prolegomena ad lexici propretici partem secundam: De forma sanctuary Judaici (Babson Ms 434). unpublished manuscript. Babson College, WellesleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Newton I (1737) A dissertation upon the sacred cubit of the Jews. In: Miscellaneous works of John Greaves Professor of Geometry at Oxford. LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Perrault C (1969) Unknown designs for the Temple of Jerusalem. In: Fraser D, Hibbard H, Lewine MJ (eds) Essays presented to Rudolf Wittkower. Phaidon, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Stukeley W (1721–24) The creation, music of the spheres K[ing] S[olomon’s] Temple microco[sm]- and macrocosm compared &c. FM MS 1130 Stu (1). Freemasons Library, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Villalpando JB, Prado J d (1604) Ezechielem explanationes et apparatus urbis Hierosolymitani commentariis et imaginibus illustratus, RomaGoogle Scholar
  20. Vitruvius (1567) De architectura libri decem, cum commentariis Danielis Barbari. apud Franciscum Franciscium Senensem & Ioan, Venetiis. Crugher GermanumGoogle Scholar
  21. Vitruvius (1960) The ten books on architecture. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Whitmer KJ (2010) The model that never moved: the case of a virtual memory theater and its Christian philosophical argument, 1700–1732. Sci Context 23(3):289–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wittkower R (1988) Architectural principles in the age of humanism. Academy Editions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Wood JoB (the Elder) (1968) The origin of building or, the plagiarism of the heathens detected. Gregg International Publishers, FarnboroughGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The School of Architecture and Built EnvironmentThe University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations