The Temple of Solomon

...was called the last Temple, so that no other Temple is to be hoped for, because this one would be the last.

XXI. Just as more information is found in the authors original: Autoribus concerning this second Temple and its buildings and divisions than regarding the first, it is nevertheless certain that the second Temple was similar to the first in most aspects, including the walls and the buildings. For when the Jews came out of the Babylonian captivity, some were still living who had seen the previous Temple; these were undoubtedly diligently consulted original: consuliret, and the foundations of the first walls were sought and found everywhere. They were eager to come as close to the first original original: original as was humanly possible, because God Himself was the architect of the first Temple as well as the Tabernacle. As King David said when handing over the floor plan of the Temple to Solomon:

All this has been given to me in writing by the hand of the Lord, so that it instructs me in all the works of the pattern. 1 Chronicles 28:19. The "pattern" refers to the divinely inspired architectural design.

XXII. Nothing has been set down here according to personal whim, but rather the guidance of the Holy Scriptures and credible authors original: Autorum has been followed. Even so, Sturmius in his Draft of the Jerusalem Temple original: Sciagraphia Templi Hierosolymitani, and Goldmann’s otherwise very famous Architecture original: Bau-Kunst, were of little service here, as they only depicted Ezekiel's Temple original: templum Ezechielis; referring to the visionary temple described in the book of Ezekiel, which scholars often distinguish from the historical Temple of Solomon, which there was no intention to build. One also could not build according to Bünting’s floor plan and depiction of the Temple, nor could one follow Adrichomius’s presentation in his Theater of the Holy Land original: Theatro terræ sanctæ in all things. Capellus, in his Thrice-Holy original: Trisagio found in Walton’s Polyglot Bible, is not clear enough in his threefold description of the Temple and is insufficient original: insufficient to represent a complete building from it. We were not able to compare original: conferiren Villalpandus Juan Bautista Villalpando was a famous 16th-century Jesuit who produced massive, though controversial, reconstructions of the Temple, although it is sufficiently clear from the excerpts original: Excerptis that Capellus took from him that the judgment original: Judicium of that interpreter original: Interpretis who translated Maimonides on the Building of the Temple original: Maimonidem de ædificio Templi is true. In his preface original: proœmio, he says that Villalpandus—to whom he otherwise attributes great learning—after 16 years of effort and labor, finally only gave a form to the Jerusalem Temple original: formam templi Hierosolymitani which was "not described according to historical truth, but was expressed only as a model of a most splendid and sumptuous building and according to the rules of Vitruvius." original: quæ non ad historiæ fidem descripta, sed tantum ad splendidissimi & sumptuosissimi ædificii exemplar & ad Vitruvii præceptiones expressa sit. Vitruvius was a Roman architect; the author is criticizing Villalpandus for making the Temple look too much like a Roman palace rather than a Hebrew sanctuary.

XXIII. In the English Critical Bibles original: Bibliis Criticis Anglicanis, in Selden’s On Natural Law according to the Hebrew Discipline original: Seldeno de Jure Naturæ secundum disciplinam Hebræorum, in Pfeiffer and his *Vexing Dou-