Estragon

I got the initial part about the dimensions of the temple and ammount of gold / silver from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...n/absurd.shtml

1KI 6:2, 2CH 3:3 Solomon's temple was only about 90 feet long by 30 feet wide,
YET:
1KI 5:15-16 153,300 persons were employed to build it.
1KI 6:38 It took seven years to build.
1CH 22:14 13,100,000 lbs. of gold and 116,400,000 lbs. of silver were used.
1CH 23:4 24,000 supervisors and 6,000 officials and judges were employed to manage it.

The density of silver is 10.5 g/cm3 or .0105 kg/cm3
The density of gold is 19.3 g/cm3 or .0193 kg/cm3
One Kilogram = 2.204622 pounds
One foot = 0.3048 meters

52,798,166kg of silver would mean = 502,839 m3
5,942,060kg of gold would mean = 30,789 m3

If you were to stack that silver in a 90 by 30 foot area (27.4 by 9.1 meter = 250m2), you would get a height of 2011meters or 6,598feet.

Gold in a 90 by 30 foot area (27.4 by 9.1 meter = 250m2), would get a height of 123 meters or 404 feet

Then if you were to add gold on top of that, you would get a structure made purely out of gold and silver of 7,001 feet high. (Empire state building is 1,250 feet tall)

Does that sound right?

-DM-

Of course not. In fact, it sounds--umm--"Absurd." And that is the point of the mention of these biblical "facts" in the Biblical Absurdities section of my Biblical Problems material.

"Everything in the Bible about Solomon sounds exaggerated--his wisdom, his wealth, his wives, his concubines, [his temple and palace]" (pp. 138, 140, 148, "Archeaology and the Bible," by J. Bowden, long out of print)

-Don-

Estragon

After doing the math, I wondered:

How does one know how much one "talent" of silver / gold weighed, that was used during those times as mentioned in: 1CH 22:14

DrJim

I think Solomon's accountants went to the same business school as Enron's!


Solomon would also have had to collect a lot more gold etc. for 700 wedding rings, and perhaps 300 more, if concubines got them too. Imagine the bills he would be stuck with for make-up, new shoes, frocks of ever-changing fashion, etc etc.

And the squabbling bloody inlaws wanting preferential treatment for thier own daughter.

No wonder the northern tribes wanted to rebel... Imagine paying taxes for all that!

-DM-

Talent = somewhere between ~57 lbs. and ~129 lbs., depending on whether it was a "light talent" or a "heavy talent" and taking into consideration that, inasmuch as we have no exact data on the weight of the biblical talent, sources differ as to its value in lbs. The value of a talent also differed somewhat from culture to culture (the Sumerian talent was not exactly equivalent to the Hebrew talent which was not exactly equivalent to the Greek talent, etc.).

--

Talent--As we can see from 2 Kings 5:23, a talent was the full weight that an able man could carry.[BIBLE MEASUREMENTS]

--

A talent was about 57 lbs. in weight.
[Talmud - Avodah Zarah]

--

The Biblical talent was actually a unit of weight. Fifty or sixty-pound copper talents were a regular medium of exchange around the Mediterranean by the 9th century BC. [Inventing Money]

--

The Biblical talent used in weighing silver was 75 pounds. [Final Events of Spiritualism]

--

1 biblical talent = 83.07 lbs
[Convertme.com-Weight and Mass

--

<A-1,Noun,5007,talanton>
originally "a balance," then, "a talent in weight," was hence "a sum of money" in gold or silver equivalent to a "talent." The Jewish "talent" contained 3,000 shekels of the sanctuary, e.g., Ex. 30:13 (about 114 lbs.). [Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words]

--

There were two talents, the heavier and the lighter. The lighter was ½ the weight of the heavier talent. The heavier talent weight 60.6 kilograms. The lighter talent was the one used in daily commerce, but see 2. Samuel 14:26.
1 talent = 58.944 kilograms : 1 kg = 2.19 lb [129 lbs.]
other sources use 1 talent = 34.02 kg = 75 lbs
[Ugarit-Ras Shamra and Conventional vs Revised Chronology]

--

talent

1) a weight or worth of a talent
1a) a talent of silver weighed about 100 pounds (45 kg)
1b) a talent of gold, 200 pounds (91 kg)
[Online Bible]

---------

1 CH 22.14: "With great pains I have provided for the house of the LORD a hundred thousand talents of gold, a million talents of silver, and bronze and iron beyond weighing, for there is so much of it; timber and stone too I have provided."

Playing with the numbers:

Using the smaller values:

100,000 x 57 lbs. = 5,700,000 lbs. of gold
1,000,000 x 57 lbs. = 57,000,000 lbs. of silver

--

Using the larger values:

100,000 x 200 lbs. = 20,000,000 lbs. of gold
1,000,000 x 100 lbs. = 100,000,000 lbs. of silver

---------

Any way that you look at it, the amount of gold and silver represented seems absurd for such a small temple.

-Don-

P.S. In fairness, some of the more-modern translations translate the verse in question in lbs. rather than talents, as follows: "Despite my troubles I've made preparations for the LORD’s temple. There are 7,500,000 pounds of gold, 75,000,000 pounds of silver, and so much bronze and iron that it can’t be weighed." I'm not sure from which secondary source I got the numbers that I used originally, but I should probably (and will) revise them downward.

GakuseiDon

I'm not saying that this isn't necessarily an absurdity, but you seem to be assuming that all the items listed were to be used solely as building materials. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say that all those materials were used, just that David prepared that amount.

How can you rule out that some of the items listed above would have been used as feeding, housing and paying for the 100,000+ workers, building construction material, etc. A million talents of silver works out as 1 talent per worker per year over ten years. That's not just salary, but providing food and (possibly) lodging as well.

As I said, I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just wondering - why do you assume that the items are supposed to be building materials?

Estragon

I was doing it just to get the feeling for how much gold and silver we're talking about, also not to mention bronze, stone and other material, which if it goes by the progression as from gold to silver (lower quality -> greater quantity), we're talking about alot of material here. It's quite possible that he's making a grand yard around the tiny temple. How much would all that gold / silver cost in today's standards?

-DM-

Technically, I didn't say that the materials were solely used for building materials, rather I said that these materials were "used." Honestly, however, I did (and do) assume that those materials were meant to be used as building and furnishing materials. After all, the workers weren't likely paid in iron and bronze, and those two materials were mentioned right in the same verse. Further, the very next verse talks about artisans skilled in working gold, silver, bronze, and iron--the very materials provided in the preceding verse. And 1KI 7 specifies that many of the furnishings were bronze and pure, solid gold, etc.

Make of it what you wish, but to me the quantity of materials (for whatever purpose) and number of workers seem to be absurdly exaggerated given the relatively small size of the temple, just as does much of what the Bible has to say about Solomon seem absurdly exaggerated.

-Don-

GakuseiDon

The more I look at it, the more it seems that David is just saying that he's prepared a lot of resources for the building of the temple. There's nothing there to say that it was just building materials - quite the opposite in fact, as there are mentions of musical instruments, bowls, cutlery, etc, for 'the service of the house of the Lord' (1 Ch 28:14).

This is a project dear to David's heart. My guess is the volumes in 1 Ch 22 represent the amounts that David has in his treasuries, and don't represent a budget just for building the house. David even says straight after that the 'gold and silver were without limit'. There is nothing to say that that 100%, 50% or 5% was used, just that that much was available.

Of course, if 1 million talents of silver were never available in ANE, then my points are moot.

-DM-

GakuseiDon:

It seems to me (as I said previously) that much of what the Bible has to say about Solomon seems absurdly exaggerated. The numbers given in relation to the temple fit in to what I see as this pattern of exaggeration, thus reinforcing my suspicions regarding those numbers.

--

A few biblical examples (other than the numbers related to the temple) of what I see as a pattern of exaggeration with regard to Solomon:

2CH 9.1-2: Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, she came to Jerusalem to test Solomon with difficult questions. She had a very large retinue, with camels carrying spices and a large amount of gold and precious stones; and when she came to Solomon, she spoke with him about all that was on her heart. Solomon answered all her questions; nothing was hidden from Solomon which he did not explain to her.

2CH 9:20 All King Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; silver was not considered valuable in the days of Solomon. [Which, by the way, tends to negate the significance, then, of the millions of talents of silver which were previously mentioned in connection with the temple.]

2CH 9.22: So King Solomon became greater than all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom.

2CH 9.23: All the kings of the earth were seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart.

2CH 9.26 He was the ruler over all the kings from the Euphrates River even to the land of the Philistines, and as far as the border of Egypt.

2CH 9.27 The king made silver as common as stones in Jerusalem, and he made cedars as plentiful as sycamore trees that are in the lowland.

--

The reality according to the cited authors (whose books are out of print but available used):

"There is not a single contemporary reference to David or Solomon in the many neighbouring countries which certainly were keeping written records during the tenth century. At a time when the Bible teaches us that Solomon created a major empire in the Middle East, none of his contemporaries, not even the Phoenicians, apparently noticed the fact. Without the Biblical accounts, history would be totally unaware of the very existence of the twin founders of the tenth-century expansion of Israel/Judah into a major power, and archaeology would have been able to do little to indicate that it had ever taken place. As far as archaeology is concerned, it was a paper (or papyrus) empire only." (Emphasis mine.) [p. 155-156, Archaeology of the Bible by Magnus Magnusson]

"This story of Sheba ... was taken from the Mahabhrata, a book of Hindu poetry dating from 500 BC." [p.221, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd M. Graham] "Can there possibly be any kernel of historical truth in this unlikely tale? The Biblical account was not written until at least five centuries after the alleged event, and the writer's motive is unequivocal: he was telling an exemplary tale to glorify Solomon." [p. 148, Archaeology of the Bible by Magnus Magnusson]

"According to 2 Chronicles 9:23 '... all the kings of the earth sought his presence.' If this be so, it is strange none of them mention him. His time, allegedly, was just prior to Homer and Hesiod, yet they do not mention this richest and wisest one. Herodotus who traveled throughout the entire Middle East does not mention him, or even the Jews. The reason is obvious: this was the age of mythology and each race wrote its own." [pp. 220-221, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd M. Graham]

"The Bible states in three different places that Solomon built the walls of Jerusalem, yet the historical Jerusalem was a walled city in the fourteenth century BC, and the Jews as a distinct sect did not then exist, tradition to the contrary." [p. 226-227, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible by Lloyd M. Graham]

"It is the most famous building in the Bible, and one of the most celebrated in the world. Yet not a stone of it remains, not a trace of all its fabled splendour.... Our image of Solomon's Temple is wholly derived from extended descriptions in the Bible, particularly in the First Book of Kings and the Second Book of Chronicles. Neither source is contemporary; Kings was written some time after the Babylonian destruction of the Temple, and Chronicles considerably later. There have been innumerable attempts to construct elaborate models of the Temple from these descriptions, but the Bible accounts are more fanciful than factual and lack architectural precision even though a wealth of measurements are given." [pp. 138, 140, 148 Archaeology of the Bible by Magnus Magnusson]

"The archaeological record is equally unequivocal: nothing has been found at any Solomonic site in Palestine to suggest the kind of ostentatious wealth attributed to Solomon's court. Indeed, the available archaeological evidence indicates a distinctly low material culture in Solomonic times. ... Everything about Solomon in the Bible sounds wildly exaggerated--his wisdom, his wealth, his wives, his concubines. Even where the building of the Temple is concerned, the same holds true. ... There is no way in which these extravagant figures can be justified, except in terms of a later romanticization of the importance of Solomon to Israel's image of its past and the significance of the Temple." (Emphasis mine.) [p. 148, Archaeology of the Bible by Magnus Magnusson]

-Don-