Did Yahweh Share His Throne

[Bernard Gui]

I am learning a lot from your comments.

Thanks for contributing so many interesting thoughts.

Bernard

[maklelan]

The tripartite construction is universal in the ancient Near East, and the pillars are pretty consistent. It's the texts, the altar, and the orientation that point to Israelite origin more than anything else.

[Ron Beron]

The tripartite construction is universal in the ancient Near East, and the pillars are pretty consistent. It's the texts, the altar, and the orientation that point to Israelite origin more than anything else.

Not only in the ANE, but also in Asia as well. I visited a famous shrine in Japan and noticed that it had the tripartite seperation including a "holy of holies". I also believe that the temple of Karnak also had this unique peculiarity.

[Uncle Dale]

Not only in the ANE, but also in Asia as well. I visited a famous shrine in Japan and noticed that it had the tripartite seperation including a "holy of holies". I also believe that the temple of Karnak also had this unique peculiarity.

I think that most Egyptian Temples did, except for the El Amarna ones.

A typical Egyptian temple had the debir carved from solid rock, then a hall of columns was built in front of that,

with an entryway at the outer threshold. The design was said to represent the primordial world. The god was

kept in a wooden cabinet in the holy of holies.

UD

[Ron Beron]

Very interesting article in current BAR by William Dever:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR....mp;ArticleID=11

Comments?

Bernard

Getting back to the original OP there are many examples of these home shrines that have the same configuration as the one presented by Dever. In a previous article H. Shanks (Hershel Shanks, "Scholars Fear to Publish Ancient Household Shrine," BAR, November/December 2005.) discusses the same thing...

Attached to the front of each of these columns is a nude female figure cast in a mold. Each wears an Egyptian-style wig and holds what appears to be a tambourine. Two smaller figures sit above the two attached to the columns, while a third small figure is attached to the center of the upper portion of the triangular entablature. Four more nude figurines are in a recess of the entablature above the entrance. They are hard to see and one may even be a dove instead.

This is an interesting comparison between the "nude female figure" with a Egyptian style wig.

Such a wig represents the goddess Hathor which has an Mesopotamian equivalent in Inanna

and in Israel as Asherah. In all of these house shrines a representation of a fertility goddess, aka Asherah

or an equivalent, has been found. However, to equate a household shrine with the overall societal worship of a goddess is a big stretch.

[Ron Beron]

I think that most Egyptian Temples did, except for the El Amarna ones.

A typical Egyptian temple had the debir carved from solid rock, then a hall of columns was built in front of that,

with an entryway at the outer threshold. The design was said to represent the primordial world. The god was

kept in a wooden cabinet in the holy of holies.

UD

I understand that the hall of columns was not done all at once, but added to in each succeeding rule. Any idea?

[Uncle Dale]

I understand that the hall of columns was not done all at once, but added to in each succeeding rule. Any idea?

Depends upon what sort of temple we are talking about -- funeral temples were built once and

generally left alone. Major temples in the complexes had new entry-ways, pylons, etc. added by

each new king who thought such work worthwhile. Thus the layout tended to get progressively

more complex. The three-part structure was not always used -- or at least it was made less

discernible by the construction of sub-compartments.

One example:

UD

[maklelan]

In Egypt the rooms would get progressively smaller and the roof would even get lower as you moved toward the shrine. Often, though, Egyptian temples had four, five, or even more chambers leading to the shrine.

[Uncle Dale]

In Egypt the rooms would get progressively smaller and the roof would even get lower as you moved toward the shrine. Often, though, Egyptian temples had four, five, or even more chambers leading to the shrine.

The Hat-hor shrine I posted has a three-part structure, but it is not easily seen.

The outer hall of columns has two sub-sections -- the offering area is in the middle --

and the sanctuary has an innermost sub-section (as well as alcoves along the walls).

It is not an Israelite temple, but there were certain parallels. The idol was brought

out periodically and carried enclosed in an ark, upon the priests' shoulders.

Hat-hor had no consort, unless we count her son, Horus.

UD

[Ron Beron]

In Egypt the rooms would get progressively smaller and the roof would even get lower as you moved toward the shrine. Often, though, Egyptian temples had four, five, or even more chambers leading to the shrine.

It would seem that the increasing narrowing and darkening would give the pilgrim a sense of awe and of transition to something higher. I would think that the temple complex at Karnak would have served as a temple dedicated to the housing of a deity and not a mortuary temple, hence the increasing complexity of the architecture.

[maklelan]

It would seem that the increasing narrowing and darkening would give the pilgrim a sense of awe and of transition to something higher. I would think that the temple complex at Karnak would have served as a temple dedicated to the housing of a deity and not a mortuary temple, hence the increasing complexity of the architecture.

Here's a floor plan for a standard Egyptian temple:

Many also included a sacred lake:

Here's the Horus temple:

In Egypt there were also numerous representations of deities, especially in the sanctuary, where they would often house the shrines of enemies they had conquered.

[Uncle Dale]

It would seem that the increasing narrowing and darkening would give the pilgrim

a sense of awe and of transition to something higher.

...

The only "pilgrim" who entered the inner sanctuary was the high priest (typically the king).

In the case of Hat-hor temples there was a female priesthood -- the high priestess was

typically a sister or other close relative of the king.

Some observers have compared the layout of rock-cut temples to the design of

the female reproductive organs -- an impression possibly carried over to Sinai

tabernacles, covered in hair and possibly having a two-columned, deep red portal.

UD

[Ron Beron]

<br />The only "pilgrim" who entered the inner sanctuary was the high priest (typically the king). <br />In the case of Hat-hor temples there was a female priesthood -- the high priestess was <br />typically a sister or other close relative of the king.<br /><br />Some observers have compared the layout of rock-cut temples to the design of <br />the female reproductive organs -- an impression possibly carried over to Sinai <br />tabernacles, covered in hair and possibly having a two-columned, deep red portal.<br /><br />UD<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

I have heard this before in relation to prehistoric caves structures that seemed to double as sacred spaces.

[Bill Hamblin]

The tripartite construction is universal in the ancient Near East, and the pillars are pretty consistent. It's the texts, the altar, and the orientation that point to Israelite origin more than anything else.

And the stratigraphy. The date of the first shrine on the site, and it's eventual abandonment and formal burial correspond nice with Israelite dates, and Josiah's reforms.

The Arad ostraca, however, are the clincher. There are numerous theophoric names combined with YHW (= Yahu/Yahweh), there is explicit mention of the king of Judah as the ruler of the city. The Edomites are called evil. YHWH is repeatedly evoked for blessings on the correspondents. There is even explicit mention of a BYT YHWH = "house of Yahweh/the Lord" (#18). There is simply no doubt that this is an Israelite site, and that the temple was a Israelite temple.

[Uncle Dale]

I have heard this before in relation to prehistoric caves structures that seemed to double as sacred spaces.

Another possible parallel (but not from any reliable source) is that the Sinai "Midianites" made use of a lunar

ritual calendar and had their periodic bloody sacrifices within the tabernacle at the time of the new moon.

The Israelite high priest sprinkled similar blood within the debir once a year.

Beyond that, I suppose it's all pure speculation.

UD

[Ron Beron]

And the stratigraphy. The date of the first shrine on the site, and it's eventual abandonment and formal burial correspond nice with Israelite dates, and Josiah's reforms.

The Arad ostraca, however, are the clincher. There are numerous theophoric names combined with YHW (= Yahu/Yahweh), there is explicit mention of the king of Judah as the ruler of the city. The Edomites are called evil. YHWH is repeatedly evoked for blessings on the correspondents. There is even explicit mention of a BYT YHWH = "house of Yahweh/the Lord" (#18). There is simply no doubt that this is an Israelite site, and that the temple was a Israelite temple.

How would these have compared to the "pagan" temples at Ain Dara, Tell Ta'yinat, and Hazor which shared the same floor plans sans the interior artifacts?

[Uncle Dale]

...

There is simply no doubt that this is an Israelite site, and that the temple was a Israelite temple.

...

In other words, it was not constructed upon the sacred space of any previous temple of shrine, dating

back to a Canaanite occupation?

Is there evidence for votive offerings suitable for a goddess, and if so, do they correspond in any way

with offerings left for non-"Israelite" ANE goddesses?

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

How would these have compared to the "pagan" temples at Ain Dara, Tell Ta'yinat, and Hazor which shared the same floor plans sans the interior artifacts?

Shared floor plans are only one factor of interpretation. By floor plan alone you cannot tell what culture, gods, rituals etc. were involved, anymore than you could distinguish a Baptist from a Mormon chapel by floor plan. Dever gives a number of parallel temple floor plans: What did the Biblical Writers Know, 148.

[Bill Hamblin]

In other words, it was not constructed upon the sacred space of any previous temple of shrine, dating

back to a Canaanite occupation?

Is there evidence for votive offerings suitable for a goddess, and if so, do they correspond in any way

with offerings left for non-"Israelite" ANE goddesses?

UD

There are other temples in Canaanite Bronze Age Arad. There is no pre-Iron Age shrine at the site of the Israelite Arad temple (See Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 156-171 summarizes the data.) The only evidence of which I am aware for the worship of a goddess there is the existence of two maṣṣbot and two incense altars (one smaller than the other) in the Holy of Holies. It is an assumption that this means the worship of two gods, or that one of these was a goddess. However, based on the biblical narratives of Josiah's reforms doing away with Asherah worship (and the contemporary destruction of the Arad temple as determined by stratigraphy), it is an excellent assumption.

[maklelan]

There are other temples in Canaanite Bronze Age Arad. There is no pre-Iron Age shrine at the site of the Israelite Arad temple (See Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 156-171 summarizes the data.) The only evidence of which I am aware for the worship of a goddess there is the existence of two maṣṣbot and two incense altars (one smaller than the other) in the Holy of Holies. It is an assumption that this means the worship of two gods, or that one of these was a goddess. However, based on the biblical narratives of Josiah's reforms doing away with Asherah worship (and the contemporary destruction of the Arad temple as determined by stratigraphy), it is an excellent assumption.

There are twelve firmly established Iron Age occupational strata at Arad. The Canaanite and Amalekite occupation ended during the Bronze Age and the site was left empty until the 12th century BCE. Hebrew texts are found from the first indication of occupation until the Babylonian captivity, which indicate the Iron Age occupation was Israelite. The Israelite temple seems to be the first sanctuary or fortress constructed on that site. I see no indication in any of the reports of previous temples.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It is an assumption that this means the worship of two gods, or that one of these was a goddess. However, based on the biblical narratives of Josiah's reforms doing away with Asherah worship (and the contemporary destruction of the Arad temple as determined by stratigraphy), it is an excellent assumption.

By what standard of evaluation (other than revelation or promptings of the Spirit) might a modern worshiper of

Israel's God begin to determine whether or not such assumed goddess worship was/is by God's commandment?

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

There are twelve firmly established Iron Age occupational strata at Arad. The Canaanite and Amalekite occupation ended during the Bronze Age and the site was left empty until the 12th century BCE. Hebrew texts are found from the first indication of occupation until the Babylonian captivity, which indicate the Iron Age occupation was Israelite. The Israelite temple seems to be the first sanctuary or fortress constructed on that site. I see no indication in any of the reports of previous temples.

You're right that there is no Bronze Age shrine underneath the the Iron Age Israelite temple. However, what I was describing are other Canaanite temples elsewhere in the Bronze Age city that are not associated with or antecedent to the Iron Age Israelite temple. I've been there several times and seen them.

[maklelan]

You're right that there is no Bronze Age shrine underneath the the Iron Age Israelite temple. However, what I was describing are other Canaanite temples elsewhere in the Bronze Age city that are not associated with or antecedent to the Iron Age Israelite temple. I've been there several times and seen them.

Ah, yes.