1 Kings 6, Masoretic Hebrew and JPS 1917 English
- Capacity
- Biblical Text
- Used for
- Wording, dimensions, spaces, materials, ornament, doors, chambers and cherubim.
- Limit
- A textual witness, not archaeological evidence or a critical apparatus.
Episode 01 / Source notes
Sources for Solomon’s Temple.
This public bibliography records the source capacity, the claim each route serves and the limitation that travels with it. A source is not upgraded by repetition, prestige or visual appeal.
12Selected public routes
Scope
The record supports a textual spatial skeleton, regional architectural context and a substantial field of uncertainty. It does not support one definitive recovered image.These notes show how the published investigation was bounded. They do not turn textual reports into material evidence or a comparative temple into a Jerusalem blueprint.
Bibliography and limits
Follow the evidence route.
1 Kings 7, Masoretic Hebrew and JPS 1917 English
- Capacity
- Biblical Text
- Used for
- Columns, capitals, the bronze Sea, basins and other furnishings.
- Limit
- Textual problems require specialist review. The passage does not supply a recovered plan.
1 Kings 6, New American Bible Revised Edition and notes
- Capacity
- Translation and notes
- Used for
- A public translation comparison and explicit warnings about lost technical terms.
- Limit
- Modern translation and commentary, not independent material evidence.
1 Kings 7, New American Bible Revised Edition and notes
- Capacity
- Translation and interpretation
- Used for
- Column and furnishing wording, including notes on difficult passages.
- Limit
- Interpretive and dependent on the biblical witnesses.
2 Chronicles 3–4, New American Bible Revised Edition and notes
- Capacity
- Later textual witness
- Used for
- Parallel descriptions and visible differences from Kings.
- Limit
- A later witness. Variants are recorded, not silently harmonised.
Kisilevitz and Lipschits, “Tel Moẓa,” Israel Antiquities Authority
- Capacity
- Primary excavation report
- Used for
- Iron Age temple context, plan, phases, preservation and excavated limits at Tel Moza.
- Limit
- Direct evidence for Tel Moza only. It is not a plan of Jerusalem’s Temple.
Tel Moẓa Excavation Project, publications and project overview
- Capacity
- Institutional project route
- Used for
- Project context and bibliography for the excavated temple complex.
- Limit
- A discovery route, not independent corroboration of the excavation reports.
Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu, “The Temple of Solomon in Iron Age Context”
- Capacity
- Peer-reviewed synthesis
- Used for
- A proposed plan, comparanda and a useful map of reconstruction disagreements.
- Limit
- The reconstruction is the authors’ proposal, not a recovered image.
Tayinat Archaeological Project, “Temple XVI”
- Capacity
- Institutional excavation summary
- Used for
- A temple-in-antis layout, rooms, podium and later alteration at Tell Tayinat.
- Limit
- Different place, polity, date and history. Comparison cannot establish Jerusalem details.
Russell, “Solomon’s Temple: On Space, Power, and Ancient Evidence”
- Capacity
- Secondary scholarship
- Used for
- Literary history, northern Syrian comparison and compositional debate.
- Limit
- Interpretation, not direct evidence for the building’s appearance.
Finkelstein, “The Iron Age Complex in the Ophel, Jerusalem”
- Capacity
- Contrary historical context
- Used for
- A critical position on dating nearby Iron Age remains.
- Limit
- The public abstract cannot support architectural claims about the Temple.
Dever, “Solomon, Scripture, and Science”
- Capacity
- Contrary macro-historical position
- Used for
- A case for a centralised tenth-century polity and traditional attribution.
- Limit
- It provides context, not direct Temple remains or a recovered plan.