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 or visual reconstructions into material evidence.
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.