Native Copper – Credit: Roger Price

From about 1550 BCE to 1200 BCE, gold may have been the marker of wealth and silver the metal of commercial currency in the Ancient Near East (ANE), but that time period is known as the Late Bronze Age. The Early Bronze Age in the ANE began around 3000 BCE when some unknown metallurgist realized that melting copper (Cu) with tin (Sn) would make the resulting substance, or alloy, stronger than copper alone. But prior to that discovery, copper’s use, without any purposeful chemical additions, went unchallenged for perhaps over six millennia. In the ANE, copper began to replace stone as the material of choice for a variety of uses such as tools, weapons, and decorations possibly as far back as 8700 BCE, as evidenced by a copper pendant dated to that time which was discovered in what is present day Northern Iraq.  

Copper 

Copper’s supremacy, in the ANE and around 5000 BCE in other places like the Indus Valley in the Indian Subcontinent and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the United States, arose from a happy coincidence of several factors. Copper was, like gold and silver, two other elements in Group 11 of the Periodic Table, an element that existed in the solid phase under Standard Temperature and Pressure conditions, that is, at 32^oF (0^oC) and 1 atm (atmosphere). While it could be found as a carbonate (e.g., malachite), as a sulphate (e.g., chalcanthite), and as an oxide (e.g., tenorite), among other sources, it could also be found in its native metallic form. By itself, copper appeared as a reddish-brown metal, one that could be seen on the ground as nuggets and available for the taking in those locations where it existed. Today an interested person can still purchase native copper from shops located in old copper mining areas.

Copper is a relatively soft and ductile metal, meaning that it could have been worked into a desired shape by hammering, although the resulting product would have been brittle. When heated prior to hammering, though, copper is not only easier to fashion, the end product is more durable. Moreover,  when it reacts with moist air, copper ultimately develops a green patina of hydrated copper carbonate, which, whether on the Statue of Liberty or residential eaves and drain pipes, then protects the underlying object from further corrosion and preserves its integrity and functionality. 

And, copper, unlike other elements like lead or mercury, is generally not toxic to healthy humans. Indeed, it is an essential dietary mineral. While our earliest civilized ancestors may not have understood the cause of adverse reactions to certain elements, or the benefits of certain minerals, by virtue of their successful non-lethal interaction with copper, their perhaps unconscious comfort level undoubtedly increased. Available, malleable, and safe, copper may well have been the first metal fashioned by humankind in diverse communities around the globe for tools and accessories.    

Of course, even as the Egyptians during their Second Dynasty period (c. 2890-2686 BCE) were elevating their Sun god Ra (pronounced Ray) to be their premier deity, and building temples for the worship of Ra, ultimately leading to the deification of the pharaoh in the Fifth Dynasty (c. 2498-2345 BCE), the Egyptians did not understand that the energy generated by the Sun as power could be transmitted through the use of copper wires. To be fair to the Egyptians, nobody else at that time made the connection between solar energy and copper transmission either. Indeed, it wasn’t until the late 18^th Century CE that the nature of electricity was beginning to be understood. And it wasn’t until the 1830s and 1840s in the United States that bare copper wire was first used to transmit electric impulses, in that case for Samuel Morse’s newly invented telegraph. Later in the 19^th Century CE, Alexander Graham Bell’s invention of the telephone spurred the use of copper wire to allow for long distance communication. 

Today, copper wire is found throughout the civilized world and is increasingly in demand for the construction and expansion of electric grids to provide electricity for all sorts of devices that modern humans not only use, but on which they rely. The demand for electricity is now so strong that at least one noted geologist, Adam Simon of the University of Michigan, has warned that we do not have enough copper mines in operation today from which to draw the copper we will need to make all of the wires, batteries, and other items which will be required to electrify the United States (much less the rest of the world) for anticipated future usage. That serious problem will not be resolved here, though, and we need to return to the Bronze Age, which means we need to know just a bit about tin.

Tin

Tin is an element typically found in a tin oxide ore known as cassiterite. When refined it is a soft, malleable metal with a silver color, but its structure changes below about  56^oF (13^oC) to a powdery substance. One early use of pure tin, as a ring near a pilgrim bottle, has been discovered in an Egyptian tomb dated to the 18^th Dynasty (c. 1550 – 1292 BCE).  

Tin has a melting point of 449^oF (232^oC), but when combined with copper, which has a melting point of 1985^oF (1085^oC), at a ratio of at least 5% tin, the resultant alloy is bronze, which is much harder than either copper or tin and more suitable for tools and weapons. The melting point of bronze will, naturally, depend on amount of tin in the alloy, but that point for modern bronzes is often quoted at 1675^oF (913^oC).

Copper, Tin, and Bronze in the Hebrew Bible

Tin

Tin, b’dil in Hebrew, is mentioned only five times in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), according to one concordance. In the Book of Numbers (at 31:22) tin is listed as among the metals that can be purified by fire, indicating, at a minimum, that the author of the text was aware of basic metallurgical processes. In Isaiah (at 1:25), tin is used metaphorically and translated as “dross” or “slag” during the prophet’s initial indictment of Judah and his forecast of harsh punishment for the sins of the community. This usage suggests that tin’s value, by itself, was considered nominal, at best.

Ezekiel referred to tin three times. The first two appear in his oracle characterizing Jerusalem as a city of bloodshed, due to the abhorrent deeds of its leaders. Like Isaiah, Ezekiel indicts the whole House of Israel as dross, but unlike Isaiah he refers to dross as including copper, iron, and lead, as well as tin. (Ezek. 22:18.) Then, adding silver into his furious rant, he foresees a time when the people will be gathered in a crucible and melted like the identified metals are processed. (Ezek. 22:20-22.) 

Ezekiel’s final reference to tin comes in the midst of his lament over the former glory of Tyre, a Phoenician island city which, at its height, was a maritime power and commercial hub.  To illustrate the point, Ezekiel states that Tyre purchased goods from merchants in Tarshish, a port city in southern Spain, in exchange for “silver, iron, tin, and lead.” (Ezek. 27:12.) Though brief, from this simple reference we gain a glimpse of the extensive international trade that was transacted in the ANE late in the 7^th and early in the 6^th Century BCE when Ezekiel was preaching. According to him, Judah was a part of this extended market as a provider of wheat, honey, olive oil, and balm. (Ezek. 27:17.)

Copper and Bronze

In the Tanakh, the Hebrew word for copper is nechoshet. The references to nechoshet in the Tanakh are considerably more in number and import than those for tin, totaling 140 over 119 verses. But this number is somewhat misleading, as the word in Hebrew language bibles sometimes refers to the element copper and sometimes to the alloy bronze. 

In English translations, the situation has become further complicated due to the fact that the original King James Bible (KJB), first published in 1611, translated nechoshet as brass, which is an alloy of copper and zinc, and later Christian translations followed the lead of the KJB. Parenthetically, why the KJB did so initially is a bit puzzling because while brass was known to metal workers in Western Europe at that time, zinc had not been identified as a unique element by then and would not be for over a century, that is, until 1746 CE.  

In any event, as archeological evidence increased, it became apparent that ANE objects comparable to those mentioned in the Tanakh and dated between 1200 and 500 BCE were in fact made of bronze. Consistent with the developing evidence, the recent (2010) translation of the KJB changed all translations of nechoshet to bronze thus matching modern Jewish translations. Not everyone was pleased with this change. To avoid any ambiguity about alloys, and be as clear as possible, in this essay, nechoshet will be translated as copper when referring to raw metal or ore and as bronze when referring to a fashioned product.  

Nechoset  in the Tabernacle

Approximately half of the mentions of nechoset in the Tanakh are found in the Book of Exodus and concern the items in the mishkan (Tabernacle), the location in which the Israelite deity YHWH was to dwell, and its surrounding courtyard. The most numerous of these items undoubtedly are the many hooks that, we are told, helped hold and secure the exteriors curtains surrounding the courtyard. The most prominent bronze items, however, were an altar and a laver, both located in the courtyard. Before discussing the individual items, though, a note about the Tabernacle and its environs is in order.

The Tabernacle and Courtyard

The Tabernacle and its surrounding courtyard in the Exodus story were of great importance to authors, editors, redactors, and canonizers of the Torah we have received. The description of the Tabernacle and its courtyard, including contents, consume almost 400 verses of the Torah, more than seven times the number of verses spent on the Second Temple in the Book of Kings. 

Structurally, the Tabernacle, also known as the dwelling place or sanctuary,  was rectangular in shape, centered at one end of a larger, enclosed rectangular courtyard. (Ex. 25:8.) The courtyard measured 100 cubits in length and 50 cubits in width. (Ex. 27:9-19.) The units of length mentioned in the Tanakh are often ambiguous or in dispute. For purposes of discussion here, this paper understands a cubit to be eighteen inches, meaning that the courtyard was 150 feet by 75 feet. 

To a modern, and uninitiated reader, the Tabernacle itself appears to be a rather simple facility.  Also a rectangular structure, it was thirty cubits long and ten cubits wide, and included two rooms, a rectangular room twenty cubits in length, which could be entered from the courtyard, and a smaller square room, ten cubits by ten cubits, which could only be entered from the first room. If so, then the Tabernacle was forty-five feet long and fifteen feet wide. The larger room, called HaKodesh (the “Holy Place”), housed three golden objects: a lampstand, an incense altar, and a table to hold bread.  (Ex. 26:33.)

The physically smaller room, fifteen feet by fifteen feet, and known as the Kodesh HaKadashim (the Most Holy Place, or Holy of Holies), contained the Ark of the Covenant, which held the stone tablets on which, we are told, were written what we call the Ten Commandments. (See Ex. 25:16, 26:33, 31:18, 34:1, 27-28.) According to the Torah, the ark was shaped like a rectangular prism, or rectangular box, constructed of acacia wood, overlaid inside and out with pure gold, embellished with cherubim of hammered gold, and fitted with a ring and pole system for carrying. (Ex. 25:10-15, 17-21; 37:1-9.)  It was in this room that God’s presence was to dwell. (See Ex. 25:8, 22.) 

But there is more here than meets the modern eye, as there are “many ancient literary parallels” to the Torah’s image of a place where a god has its shrine.  Moreover, the closest parallel may be more than merely literary. In their rectilinear shapes, their orientations to the East, and the divisions of the interior structure, the Tabernacle and courtyard described in the Book of Exodus are remarkably similar to the military tent complex of an Egyptian pharaoh, specifically Rameses II, who reigned from about 1279 to 1213 BCE, and is considered one of Egypt’s most powerful pharaohs during one of Egypt’s most powerful periods.  This suggests that the Tabernacle for YHWH, the Israelite’s deity, was conceived as a warrior god’s tent, or, more precisely, the military tent of YHWH. It cannot be merely coincidental, that in passages telling of the Israelites’ escape from Egypt YHWH is described as one who fights and battles, as one who is like a “man of war.” (Ex. 14:14, 25; 15:3.)

Still, why would YHWH having just led the Israelites out of Egypt and defeated (an unnamed) pharaoh direct his people to imitate the military camp of a bitter enemy. This, and other factors, have led to an alternate theory: the model for the Israelite Tabernacle and camp complex is not Egypt, but Persia. If so, this theory raises other questions about who wrote the words we find in the Torah we have received and why they did so. 

Traditionalists claim that the physical items identified and the activities described as occurring in the Tabernacle and the courtyard were initially written by Moses at the direction of God. Modern scholars tend to disagree, seeing the text as the product of human hands writing centuries after the claimed exodus would have occurred. But among modern scholars there are further controversies. One is that while some believe the text to have been written by priestly scribes prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon, others contend it to be an exilic or post-exilic work. Overlapping that dispute, some believe the text to be a model or blueprint for one or more temples while other contend that it is a warning against any permanent temple.  We will not even attempt to address, much less resolve, those questions here, but all three factors we have mentioned – the tangible aspects of the facility, the instructions for its erection, and the dating of the text – ought to be kept in mind as we explore more closely where nechoshet was mentioned.

The Bronze Altar

In connection with the furnishing of the courtyard, the Torah tells us that God sought the inclusion of an altar for a variety of ritual sacrifices and dictated explicit, if not complete, instructions for its construction. First, the altar was to be framed with wood boards made from  an aytz shittim, literally meaning a tree of thorns. (Ex. 27:1.) The reference is generally understood to be to acacia wood, because the root of the singular word shittah refers to piercing, and acacia branches have long thorns. Second, the altar was to be square in shape, five cubits (7.5 feet) in length and width and 3 cubits (4.5 feet) high, with horns at each of its four corners. (Ex. 27:1-2.) Third, the square, horned frame was to be overlaid with bronze, and the completed structure left hollow, save for a mesh bronze grating set in the middle of the altar and on which sacrificed items would be placed. (Ex. 27:2, 4-5.) God also specified that a variety of bronze utensils be fashioned, including fire pans. (Ex. 27:3.) Finally, to enable the altar to be carried, God ordered bronze rings for the altar and bronze plated acacia wood poles which would fit through the rings. (Ex. 27:6-7.) Bezalel, the chief craftsman in charge, reportedly made the bronze altar and associated implements accordingly. (See Ex. 38:1-7.)

At first blush, the shape and structure of the bronze altar appear to be similar to those of the ark, that is, a rectangular frame encased in a metal coating, with the two metals being different.  

The similarity of design and the difference in materials both reflect distinctly priestly understandings of an underlying order in the universe. Symmetry in shape was desired and gold was the metal of choice for the most sacred objects, while lesser valuable bronze was seen as more suitable for an important but clearly less esteemed and primarily utilitarian task.

But were acacia wood and bronze even available? And was the use of a wooden frame encased in bronze for an altar designed to burn sacrificed animals and grain practical? How plausible is it that such an altar actually existed?

To be clear at the outset, there is no hard evidence that an altar such as the one described in the Book of Exodus ever existed. To some extent this is not surprising as the object would have been fashioned, if at all, well over three thousand years ago. And even assuming that the altar was built that long ago, was preserved, and survived a couple of centuries of travel and adventure, there is no indication in the Book of Kings (BOK) that it was then brought into the Temple Solomon reportedly built in Jerusalem.  

The BOK also does not claim expressly that a new bronze altar was built to replace any such object. (See 1 Kgs 7.1-51.) The Book of Chronicles, however, which was written after the BOK and in some ways is a revision of it and aspects of the Torah itself, does make such a claim. The Chronicler asserts that the sacrificial altar Solomon placed in his courtyard was a new and enlarged structure, 30 feet long and wide and 15 feet high. No mention is made of a cladded wood frame. It was, supposedly, just made of bronze. (1 Chron 4:1.)

Moreover, there is no evidence that any bronze altar subsequently survived either Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem and seizure of substantial booty from King Hezekiah c. 701 BCE (see 2 Kgs 18:13-16) or the destruction of the Temple, and Jerusalem itself, when the Babylonians, in a series of onslaughts from c. 597 to 587 BCE, conquered and then destroyed the city, ultimately burning down all buildings including the Temple and the Royal Palace, and carting off considerable amounts of bronze objects and whatever gold and silver items remained after an earlier stripping of the more valuable metals. (See 2 Kgs 24:8-13; 25:8-10, 13-17.) Had any bronze altar survived the Babylonian firestorm, and subsequent looting over time, arguably some remnant of it or of related utensils could be buried deep under the Temple Mount. But that is just speculation piled on speculation, and, in any case, such items, should they ever have existed, are presently inaccessible and look to be so for the foreseeable future. 

Archaeology provides some help with our concerns about the probability of a bronze clad altar. A square four horned altar matching the height of the biblical bronze altar, was discovered in Tel Beer-Sheva by Israeli archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni in the 1970s. That altar has been dated to the 8^th Century BCE, roughly half a millennium after the Exodus story is set, and there is at least one suggestion that it was built a century or so more recently than that. 

More importantly for this discussion, the altar at Beer-Sheva was not framed in bronze clad acacia wood or, for that matter with any metal cladding for walls. Rather, it was made of stone as, we are told, YHWH expressly desired after the theophany at Sinai (Ex. 20:22) and as prescribed in Deuteronomy for a future altar (Deut. 27:5). On the other hand, the stone was sandstone blocks which were fashioned, not the unhewn stones required in the Book of Exodus. (Ex. 20:22.) 

Archaeologists have also found numerous other altars designed to burn sacrificed animals, but all were built of stone or clay in order to contain and withstand the heat generated in such a device.  For instance, the altar at Tel Arad, dated to c. 950 BCE, was square in shape, each side measuring five cubits, just as indicated for the Tabernacle courtyard altar. But it was built of small and unhewn stones. The altar at Tel Danwas also square in shape and constructed in stone. The remains of that altar, initially uncovered and dated to the time of King Jeroboam II of Israel (c. 760 BCE), also included a horn extending from one of the corners of the altar. Further investigation indicated that the structure was previously part of a reconstruction effort of an older, pre-existing pagan altar during the time of the first king of Israel, Jeroboam I (c. 930-910 BCE). Parenthetically, Tel Dan is also the site where in 1993 an inscription on a broken stele was discovered which appears to reference the “house of David”!            

In short, no other altar used for sacrificing burning animals or grain has yet been found that utilized a frame of acacia wood or any other type of wood encased in bronze cladding. To understand why no similar altar has been found and might never be found, let’s consider the problem of the wood and then that of bronze cladding. 

The only type of wood that could have been employed for use in the Tabernacle courtyard altar was that available in the immediate area around where construction took place. The Torah implies that the site of the complex was in the wilderness of Sinai, near Mount Sinai (Ex. 19:2, 11), but there is no real consensus about the location of Mount Sinai. Some look to a site near Jabal Musa, a mountain in the southern portion of the Sinai peninsula. Others look to the Southwestern area of present-day Saudi Arabia.  Restricting our investigation to those areas, it seems that acacia trees, in fact several varieties of acacia, can be found there. To complicate matters, though, in recent years there has been considerable debate and some contested reclassification regarding the proper botanical identification of acacia trees.  

We’ll try to simplify matters by retaining traditional designations. But that accommodation gets us only so far. Within the acacia family, some favor Acacia raddiana and some opt for Acacia seyal. Fortunately, we do not have to choose which, if any, party is correct here. Assuming for the moment that the Tabernacle was erected, we can simply acknowledge that some form of acacia wood may well have been available in the surrounding neighborhood. We can do that because there are two more significant questions that have to be addressed regarding the construction of the Tabernacle courtyard altar.  

Let’s assume that the wood in question was sourced from an Acacia seyal tree. Let’s agree such a tree could have been between 25 to 50 feet tall with a trunk one to two feet in diameter. The text of the Torah does not indicate that logs or branches were used to build the altar. It indicates a cleaner, square frame. So, how was the trunk of the acacia cut into the boards or panels which formed the frame that was to be clad with bronze?  There is no reference in the text to any saws being employed and, indeed, the double saw technique for forming wooden boards, apparently known to but not generally utilized by the Romans did not become common in Europe until the 15th Century CE, long, long after the reported exodus.  Nor is there any mention of adzes or other ancient shaping tools that might have been employed. Absent some explanation, it’s easy to doubt the entire altar story. 

The oldest evidence of a wood plank comes, ironically enough, from a site in Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in Israel. A fragment of a polished plank found there has been dated to roughly 780,000 years ago! While the age of that fragment is obviously astonishing, the reality is that the process that created that plank was apparently lost subsequently and for hundreds of thousands of years. 

Turning to still quite old, but relatively more modern technologies, we know that copper saws for cutting wood were known to Egyptians as far back as the First Dynasty, which began c. 3100 BCE, and bronze saws dated to 2750 BCE have been found in Mesopotamia. It may be that ancient Egyptians were the first to use wood planks, rather than logs, in military or commercial ships. 

So, by the time the reported exodus from Egypt might have occurred, the technology for sawing wood into planks seems to have existed, but the Torah does not mention saws of any kind, much less bronze saws, in connection with the building of the Tabernacle or its contents. One possible explanation is that the story was written during or even after the First Temple period, centuries into the Iron Age, when the composition of saws may have transitioned to iron, but tradition precluded the mention of iron in connection with the fashioning of holy objects. Another reason might be that the mechanics of construction were simply not important, certainly not as important as the objects being fashioned or the materials used. Thus, while a viable process for cutting the wood frames in the wilderness for an altar appears possible, the issue also remains unclear. Moreover, it is not the only materials science hurdle that the altar story faces. 

Depending on the alloy composition, the melting point of tin bronze typically ranges from about 1560°F to 1920°F  (849°C to 1049°C). Handling molten metal is, obviously, a dangerous activity. How ancient Israelites in the wilderness could have smelted metal and affixed it to a wooden frame is not at all clear. What is certain is that if molten bronze were poured or otherwise came in contact with an acacia wood frame, the result would be highly reactive, perhaps even explosive. That suggests that the plates surrounding the acacia for the bronze altar would have to have been formed separately and the acacia plates inserted in between them. Bands of bronze would also have had to be placed at the tops and bottoms of the frame to seal in the acacia. The challenge is considerable and even if accomplished would not guarantee the integrity of the structure.

Consider that in open-air conditions, and depending on the wood fueling the fire and the extent of air circulation, a wood fire might reach about 1100°F to 1470°F (600°C to 800°C). Under those normal operational conditions, while the bronze plating of the described altar would get very hot, possibly glowing red, it is unlikely that it would melt. But the bronze might well have been compromised, leading to a buckling of the metal and a deforming of the altar. 

Moreover, bronze is also a decent conductor of heat, not as efficient as pure copper or even brass, but good enough such that a hot bronze plate would transfer heat to the wood behind it. Two possibilities must then be considered. 

If the wood were completely sealed by bronze, and an oxygen free environment created, the wood would still be at risk of pyrolysis, the decomposition of organic material due to heat. Slow pyrolysis of wood can begin at temperatures as low as 392^oF (200^oC) and will accelerate to fast pyrolysis at temperatures above 572^oF (300^oC).

If oxygen were present, perhaps due to an incomplete seal, there would have been be a risk of combustion. The ignition point for any wood depends on the moisture content of the wood, and its density, among other factors, but the phenomenon of low temperature ignition of wood is quite real. The ignition point for wood falls in a range between about 482/570°F (around 250/300°C). The risk – especially if the altar fire were sustained for long periods – would have been that heat would build up on one or more of the interior bronze plates, reach say 600^o+F, far below a maximum temperature for a wood fire, and eventually ignite the acacia behind a plate.

The consequential risk to the structural integrity of the altar would have increased if the bronze plating were thin and bonded tightly to the wood, factors not discussed in the Torah. Conversely, the risk would have decreased if the bronze plating were thick or if the fire source were elevated and the frame were less exposed to direct heat, again factors not discussed with any precision in the Torah. 

All we know from the Torah is that the fire source was to have been set low in the system, because the text states that a bronze mesh sufficient to hold the items being sacrificed was to be placed midway between the top and the bottom of the square altar. (Ex. 27:5.) That requirement itself raises a separate question about the functionality and integrity of the altar unless air vents were installed at the bottom of the plates, but none are mentioned in the Torah. Supplying sufficient air to keep the altar fire burning would have been important, of course, but cutting vents through the multi-plate system would have broken the symmetry of the system and introduced other problems including the possibility of admitting oxygen near the wood. 

In sum, we know that acacia wood was available in the most likely places where the Tabernacle could have been constructed. But there is no historical example of using bronze (or other metal) clad acacia (or other wood) for a sacrificial altar, and a very good set of reasons why such construction would have been difficult and dangerous. All this suggests that the story is not historical reporting, but, rather, theological messaging.   

The historicity of the altar describe in the Book of Exodus is also challenged by a story that appears in the Book of Numbers. In the latter book, the Torah tells us that a man named Korach, supported by 250 tribal leaders, engaged in a rebellion against Moses that ended very badly for them. (Num 16:1-35.) Subsequently, Moses instructed the High Priest’s son (and Moses’s nephew) Eleazer, to collect the bronze fire pans of the rebels and hammer them into sheets to cover the altar. (Num. 16:36-39.) But, of course, according to the Book of Exodus the altar had already been covered in bronze! 

Over the centuries, numerous scholars have tried to rationalize this biblical inconsistency, but the arguments raised have been either insufficient or have raised further questions. The most reasonable explanation for the two cladding stories is that they were authored by two different individuals (or schools of thought), each of whom (or of which) was unaware of (or rejected) the competing story. It further seems that each author was making assumptions regarding altar construction based on that with which he was familiar or just imagined, not what might actually have been built and functioned, and embellished the results conceived. 

The Bronze Serpent

The use of bronze religious objects by ancient Israelites, as indicated in the Hebrew Bible, was not limited to features of or items used in the Tabernacle complex. There are two stories in the Tanakh, one in the Book of Numbers (Num 21:4-9) and the other in the Book of Kings (2 Kgs 18:4), that involve a nehat nechoshet, a serpent of bronze, and, indeed, reportedly the same bronze serpent. 

The context for the first story is that the Israelite deity YHWH decided to punish the Israelites for one of their frequent complaints during their time in the wilderness, this complaint alleging insufficient food and water. The particular form of divine punishment chosen consisted of sending fiery serpents to bite the people which, no doubt, resulted in considerable discomfort for most, as well as death for many. (Num 21:6.) Not surprisingly, the afflicted people soon acknowledged their sinning ways and asked Moses to intervene on their behalf which he did. In response, YHWH directed Moses to fashion a serpent and place it on a pole so that anyone who was bitten could look at the figure and recover. Moses dutifully made a bronze serpent and, according to the text, those who looked at it received the promised relief. (Num 21:9.)

Now flash forward some seven hundred years of biblical time to the late 8^th Century BCE when King Hezekiah ruled Judah from Jerusalem. According to the BOK, some Judahites were treating a bronze serpent as a deity, even offering sacrifices to it. (2 Kgs 18:4.) Ostensibly, as part of a larger program of national independence and the centralization of worship, Hezekiah not only abolished shrines, smashed pillars, and cut down sacred posts in rural areas, he broke into pieces the bronze serpent that the Torah claimed Moses had made at YHWH’s direction!  (Id.)

It’s hard to determine which serpent story is more fanciful. The first seems to invoke sympathetic magic in which a symbolic object affects an actual one. But there is no scientific basis for concluding that observing a bronze serpent could really heal the adverse consequences of poisonous venom. The second story imagines that a bronze snake on a pole somehow survived well over half a millennium, and that Hezekiah suddenly took it upon himself to destroy what the Master of the Universe had instructed be built.

To make some sense out of these stories, we have to first recognize that there is a grain a truth to them and then we need to look at the possible purposes the writers and redactors of the text may have had. First, cast bronze snakes have been found in archaeological excavations dating to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550 -1200 BCE) in areas like Hazor north of the Sea of Galilee, Tel Mevorakh and Gezer in Central Israel, and Timna in the Southern Negev Desert. Both Dr. Susan Meschel, at one time an adjunct professor in the materials science Department of the Illinois Institute of Technology, and Dr. Richard Lederman, have written that such objects were either “associated with” ancient Midianite settlements (Meschel) or in “cultic environments” (Lederman). (See also, Munnich, Maciej, “The Cult of Bronze Serpents in the Ancient Canaan and Israel.”)

According to Dr. Lederman, serpent images disappeared generally with the transition into the Iron Age, which covers Hezekiah’s time, but he also acknowledges that it is possible that one or more cultic images of snakes may have been maintained by Israelites into the kingdom period and, if so, that object of idolatry may have provoked Hezekiah. However, to believe that the bronze snake Hezekiah destroyed was really the same object that Moses fashioned more than about five centuries earlier requires several leaps of faith about Moses and the durability and protection of bronze objects.

What is more plausible arises from the nature of Egyptian culture during Hezekiah’s reign and the shifting political alliances in the region at that time. In Egypt, serpents were identified with healing and protective powers. Given the increased influence of Egypt during an early period in Hezekiah’s reign, including an alliance of Judah with Egypt when Hezekiah rebelled against Assyrian control, as evidenced by the reappearance of serpent imagery on seals and seal impressions during his reign, it is not unlikely that Hezekiah erected or permitted the erection of a serpent on a pole as a sign of solidarity with Egypt. If he did, then when Sennacherib of Assyria gained control over Judah (c. 701 BCE), Hezekiah either felt it prudent or was compelled to destroy the image in order to confirm Judah’s status as a vassal of Assyria. A variation on this possibility is that the bronze snake was not destroyed but was in fact gifted to Sennacherib as part of the incredible tribute that Hezekiah was forced to turn over to the Assyrians following Sennacherib’s successful siege of Jerusalem. (See 2 Kgs 18:13-16. ) As Lederman notes, transferring a local deity’s image would have been “an especially valuable piece of tribute.”

Now if Hezekiah sought to abolish idol worship, including a highly visible and, perhaps, myth laden bronze serpent, he failed miserably. The BOK and various books of several prophets in the 7^th through the 5^thCenturies BCE are filled with reports about the continuing pull that idol worship had on the people of Judah. This fact leads to yet another possibility. Those who doubt the historicity of the Biblical account of the Exodus might well argue that both the story of the bronze serpent in the Book of Exodus and the claim in the BOK that Hezekiah destroyed it were written as part of the Deuteronomist school’s efforts during King Josiah‘s reign late in the 7^th Century BCE to impose a program of serious religious reform which called for the abolition of idols and pillars and the centralization of worship in Jerusalem. That argument not only provides a plausible explanation for the presence of the two stories in the Tanakh, one being the setup and the other the knockdown, it also teaches us about the inventive nature of ancient belief systems and the difficulty of overcoming totems in favor of monotheism, especially when the deity of choice is invisible and intangible.  

Bronze in Solomon’s Temple

The word nechoshet appears over three dozen times in the BOK, initially as part of the description of the construction by King Solomon of a Temple in Jerusalem over a period of seven years beginning in 967 B.C.E. according to some calculations and, later, in connection with the final and complete destruction of that Temple by the Babylonians c. 587 BCE (See 1 Kgs 7:13-47; 2 Kgs 25:13-17.) As in the case of the description in the Torah of the Tabernacle and its courtyard, nechoshet is a descriptor of items in the Temple courtyard, outside of the two rooms reserved for priests and certain ritual activity, which rooms were adorned in gold and silver.

The first use of bronze in the Temple, according to the BOK, was the casting of two sizeable bronze pillars which were placed at the entry to the Temple.  (1 Kgs 7:15-22.) The pillars were eighteen cubits high with a circumference of twelve cubits. Assuming an eighteen-inch cubit, this would equate to pillars twenty-seven feet tall and just under six feet in diameter. A cast bronze capital, seven-and-a-half feet high, was placed on each pillar, which were embellished in bronze with pomegranate and lily designs.

Then a circular pool or tank was made, called a yam mutzak, that is, a cast metal sea. (2 Kgs 7:23.) In its initial description, the BOK at this point does not identify the metal used to create the pool, but the context suggests bronze, as another major feature, an altar, and some minor items such as rectangular stands with wheels and axletrees which simulated carts or chariots, each stand designed to hold individual bronze lavers, were all bronze, as were ladles, shovels, and pails. (See 2 Kgs 7:27-45.) Moreover, at the end of the BOK, the text does refer to the tank as having been made of bronze. (2 Kgs 25:13.) 

The tank was seven-and-a-half feet in height and a handspan in thickness, with a diameter of fifteen feet and a circumference of 45 feet. (2 Kgs 7:23.) The measurements for diameter and circumference do not match precisely what we would expect for a perfectly circular item, but they are close and the difference may be attributable to the author rounding out the measurements. This tank was to sit on the rear haunches of twelve oxen of unspecified composition, but again presumed to be bronze, that encircled the tank in trios, one for each cardinal direction. (2 Kgs 7:25; see 2 Chron 4:15-16.) The BOK reports that the total collection of bronze items was neither weighed nor measured due to its abundance. (2 Kgs 7:39.)        

Here we have to ask how Solomon could have secured such a large quantity of copper. The answer has only recently appeared. As the Bronze Age developed, copper mining became an important component of economic development and military security. Two of the most significant sources for copper ore as far back as 5000 BCE were in Wadi Faynan in present day Jordan and to the south, the Timna Valley fifteen miles north of Eilat in the Aravah Valley in Israel. 

Erez Ben-Yosef, an archaeology professor at Tel Aviv University and head of the Timna Valley Archaeology Expedition, led a relatively recent excavation at Timna which had been understood since the early discoveries of Nelson Glueck in the 1930s to be the site of Late Bronze Age copper smelting operations run by Egyptians and using slave labor. Utilizing Carbon 14 and archaeo-magnetic dating technology, his team discovered that the peak of metallurgical activity at Timna actually “took place during the early Iron Age, or “11^th-9^th centuries B.C.E. . . . dates (which) fall squarely within the biblical timeframe for the United Monarchy . . ..”  Analyzing remains of food, including expensive imports, textiles, and animals, the team concluded that during this period, the metal workers at Timna were not slaves but rather “skilled craftsmen,” with advanced, even “sophisticated knowledge” of the dozens of “variables (involved in producing) coveted copper ingots.” As a result of such talent, they “enjoyed high social status.” 

On the political front, the team determined that the Timna copper mines of the period were “an Edomite operation.” But while there is no conclusive archaeological evidence of Israelite control of Edom during the United Monarchy period, and the BOK makes no reference to Edomite copper, perhaps to avoid an inconvenient truth, the Tanakh does contain claims about controlling Edom. (See, e.g., 2 Sam 8:13; 1 Kgs 11:15.) Such control, and his reported great wealth, could explain how Solomon secured the enormous quantities of copper needed to produce the bronze utilized in the construction of the Temple. 

But just because Solomon could have secured a large amount of copper does not in any way prove that some of that copper was used to build an enormous water tank. That object requires a bit more consideration.

For instance, how much water might have been in the pool is not stated with precision in the BOK, but there is an assertion that the capacity of the tank was 2,000 baths. (1 Kgs 7:26.) When Chronicles discusses the tank, however, it claims the capacity was 3,000 baths, a considerable difference. (2 Chron 4:5.) Of course, we do not know what either author meant by a quantity called a “bath.” A contemporary source claims that the bronze pool would have held 16,000 gallons of water. If so, then a 2,000-bath tank would have allocated just 8 gallons of water per bath. A 3,000-bath tank would have allocated even less, 5 1/3 gallons per bath.  

In his book, Prophets, Prof. Robert Alter states that the bronze tank was to be used by priests to bathe their hands and feet prior to engaging in ritual activity. (At 463, n. 23; see also, 1 Kgs 7:26, 2 Chron 4:6.) Similarly, in The Jewish Study Bible, editors Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler include a note which claims that the “elevated tank provided water under pressure so that the priests could wash conveniently without having to draw from Temple cisterns.”  (JSB, 1st Ed., at 687.) Both assertions discount the possibility that the sizable tanks were used in some immersion ritual or practice. Fair enough, as baptism, as distinct from ritual cleansing, is not discussed in the BOK, but the preceding calculation of gallons per bath suggests more of a rinse than a bath and even then not very much to cleanse a priest working in a sunny courtyard and dealing with smoke, odors, and spattering carcasses.  

The enormity of the tank raises at least two other issues as well. Given that a gallon of water weighs about 8.34 pounds, a tank of 16,000 gallons would have, if filled, contained almost 67 tons of water. That enormous quantity of liquid would have created considerable pressure on the walls of the pool and been a substantial load to be supported by the oxen. Was the construction team sophisticated enough to calculate the stresses of the water on the bronze tank, or is this story more fiction than fact?

Notably, the description of the bronze tank in the BOK does not mention any pipes or valves which could be opened and closed, let alone under the considerable pressure of 16,000 gallons of water. Artistic renderings of what the large tank, supported by twelve bulls, might have looked like are many and varied. What they have in common is that given the size and  placement of each trio of bulls, which results in twenty-four rear bull legs and twelve bull tales in very close proximity to each other, it is hard to imagine how anyone could have accessed the base of the tank to release water. 

All this suggests that the yam mutzak was a clear case where the architectural principle of form following function was not employed. But we need to be careful here, because the Temple preceded architect Louis Sullivan by over two and a half millennia and the presumed function of cleansing priests might not be accurate. If, for instance, the purpose of the bronze sea was more symbolic rather than practical, then its form becomes more understandable. 

Prof. Alter contends that the author of the text may have intended for it to evoke the creation of the universe. (Prophets, at 463, n. 23.) Alternatively, perhaps it was intended to refer to the yam suf, the sea the Book of Exodus claims the Israelites crossed as they escaped from Egypt. We may never know, but either symbolic reference is more plausible than the functioning challenged and, therefore, problematic giant water tank.   

The bronze tank is mentioned expressly only two other times in the BOK. The first time it appears in a report of King Ahaz of Judah, who reigned for sixteen years in the last half of the 8^th Century BCE and who, while Jerusalem was under siege from both the kingdoms of Israel and Aram, made an alliance with King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria resulting in Judah avoiding capture by those foes, but becoming a vassal of Assyria. (See2 Kgs 16:5-9.) Following a trip to Damascus to visit with the Assyrian king, Ahaz returned with a plan to build a new altar patterned after one he saw in Damascus and also to take the bronze tank off of its bovine supports and place it on the stone pavement. (2 Kgs 16:10-18.) If true, whether the tank served any purpose after that is not clear. 

Ahaz died and was succeeded by his son Hezekiah. Ultimately, Hezekiah, too, had an encounter with an Assyrian king and it did not go well. Circa 701 B.C.E., Sennacherib of Assyria swept down into Judah, conquered all of Judah’s allies, thrashed Judah’s fort and military defenses at Lachish, and laid siege to Jerusalem. The BOK acknowledges that Hezekiah conceded that he had “done wrong” and would accept “whatever” penalty Sennacherib would impose on him. (2 Kgs 18:14.) That penalty included enormous quantities of gold and silver, and all sorts of other treasure. (2 Kgs 18:14-16.) The bronze tank is not mentioned either in the BOK or in Sennacherib’s Annals as part of the booty Sennacherib took with him, but the Assyrian king, in his Annals, did refer to taking back “all kinds of valuable heavy treasure” back to Assyria, so it is possible. (See Annals of Sennacherib, 48/214.)  

When the Babylonians defeated the Assyrians and came to Jerusalem over one hundred years later, they burned the Temple, the royal palace, and, indeed, all dwellings in Jerusalem. The text tells us that in the course of their rampage, the Babylonians smashed the bronze pillars, the bronze pool, the bronze stands, and miscellaneous other bronze items and took them back to Babylon. (See 2 Kgs 25:9-17.) If true, that claim at the end of the BOK would mean, at least, that those items, if they ever existed, were 1) not collected by Sennacherib as part of the enormous booty that he received following his successful siege of Jerusalem and 2) that those items survived for the roughly three-and-a-half centuries of the life of Solomon’s Temple. 

The fact remains that we have no archaeological evidence for the bronze features in Solomon’s temple, much less their survival for so long. And it seems unlikely that an item like the bronze sea could have survived until the final destruction of Jerusalem. It is possible, of course, that some part of the bronze sea is buried under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. And perhaps someday we will have devices that can see deep into that site and reveal what lies below, but until that time comes we must remain skeptical because is also possible that  the author telling of the final days of Judah was just trying to create a record of artifact continuity rather than admit that some once valuable possessions were damaged, destroyed, lost, stolen, or confiscated over a period of about 350 years. 

Conclusion

Our trip to visit selected bronze sites in the Tanakh has taken us from the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age, from an encampment near Mount Sinai to some unknown high place to the (First) Temple complex in Jerusalem. We have considered a bronze altar, a bronze snake, and a bronze basin. We have found no clear, hard evidence that any of these objects were built at the time and place indicated, and learned a number of reasons why each would have been problematic either in construction or operation or both.

Our review of three curious bronze objects mentioned in the Tanakh has been productive, however, as we can now begin to understand how geology, materials science, engineering, and archaeology can together illuminate Judaism’s sacred texts and traditions and even its theology. For instance, the orderliness of the Tabernacle might suggest the orderliness of the universe, and can remind us both of creation and the possibility of renewal. A comparison of the Tabernacle with the First Temple might reflect advantages of an open, inclusive, and accessible place to gather. The use of metallurgical language and references might even provide an insight into the origin and nature of Israel’s deity, YHWH. There is a lot to consider, to reflect on here. 

No doubt some will not be satisfied because we have not “proven” the historicity of the Bible. They will criticize our failure to take some bit of hard data, any bit of hard data, to support their pre-existing notion about the “truth” of the text. Our aim and our conclusions are less ambitious. We have seen nothing to indicate that Moses or Solomon really existed. We cannot say that the Tabernacle described in the Book of Exodus or the Temple described in the BOK was ever built at the time indicated or that the artifacts mentioned were actually located in those places. We don’t know as much about the resources or skillsets of metal workers during the relevant time periods as we would like. All we can do is make some educated guesses based on pieces of information currently available that make some scenarios more and some less plausible than others. And then we wait for the next discovery, not worried that it will upset our tentative evaluations, but, rather, hoping that it will shed more light on the history of ancient Israelites and their descendants.   

And that is fine, because the most valuable lesson here may concern something other, and something more important, than three physical objects. The altar in the Tabernacle courtyard was there to receive animal and grain sacrifices to a deity who was thought to be present from time to time in a nearby room. The serpent on a pole was in a rural area, and while the serpent reportedly had some therapeutic properties, the Book of Numbers does not claim that any god dwelt in or around it. And though the Book of Kings claims that a cloud filled the house that Solomon reportedly built for YHWH (2 Kgs 8:10-13), it also recognized that such a deity could not be contained by such a house, and might not dwell on earth (2 Kgs 8:27). 

We, who are the descendants of the ancient Israelites, whether literally or figuratively, and whether by birth or by choice, are even more disengaged from animal and grain sacrifices, magical serpents, and giant water basins for priestly usage than were the Judeans who lived in  Second Temple times, prior to that Temple’s destruction in 70 CE. Our Jewishness is not dependent on the presumed holiness of one place or one ritual, much less on hereditary priests or earthly kings. For some, being Jewish involves a covenant of the heart. (See Jer 31:31-34.) For others, it will be found in the texts and commentaries written over the past three thousand years, give or take, and the rites and rituals that are based on them. Still others will engage in the depth and breadth of the evolving civilization of the Jewish People, as initially formulated by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan or, like Albert Einstein, might look to the cosmos and find Spinoza’s God.  Regardless of the path chosen, each and all partake in a conversation that extends across time and space. We have moved beyond copper and bronze artifacts, but we cannot and should not forget the stories based on them. Those stories are, you might say, elemental.

1. Yankel Raskin says:

   November 2, 2025 at 10:43 am

   Rashi clearly stays that they brought the Accaia wood from Egypt when they left…this was planted by Jacob our godfather as he prophetically knew that they would need it

   Reply