Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Was There An Israelite Temple In Bethlehem?


maklelan

Recommended Posts

I found something interesting in Judges 19 while doing some reading for my text and temples class. In verse 18 a man says (according to the KJV), "I went to Bethlehem-Judah, but I am now going to the house of the Lord." The "am now" part is italicized, though. I checked the Hebrew and the text reads as follows:

וָאֵלֵךְ עַד־בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוָה אֲנִי הֹלֵךְ

which, according to me, should be, "and I went to Bethlehem-Judah, and I was going to the house of the Lord."

There is no justification for the interpolation of "but now" unless you insist on interpreting the participle as present tense, which doesn't make sense considering the man has already stated he's going home to "the far side of mount Ephraim." The LXX has "and I am going to my house" instead of "the house of the Lord," but it has been effectively argued that the Greek translation mistook a single yod, an abbreviation for the tetragrammaton, for the first person singular pronominal suffix.

Was there an Israelite temple (or tabernacle) in Bethlehem during the time of the judges? I don't see any reason why not.

Link to comment
I found something interesting in Judges 19 while doing some reading for my text and temples class. In verse 18 a man says (according to the KJV), "I went to Bethlehem-Judah, but I am now going to the house of the Lord." The "am now" part is italicized, though. I checked the Hebrew and the text reads as follows:

וָאֵלֵךְ עַד־בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוָה אֲנִי הֹלֵךְ

which, according to me, should be, "and I went to Bethlehem-Judah, and I was going to the house of the Lord."

There is no justification for the interpolation of "but now" unless you insist on interpreting the participle as present tense, which doesn't make sense considering the man has already stated he's going home to "the far side of mount Ephraim," which is quite a ways from Jerusalem. The LXX has "and I am going to my house" instead of "the house of the Lord," but it has been effectively argued that the Greek translation mistook a single yod, an abbreviation for the tetragrammaton, for the first person singular pronominal suffix.

Was there an Israelite temple (or tabernacle) in Bethlehem during the time of the judges? I don't see any reason why not.

My 'first" issue with the entire question is that the hebrew verses you are refferancing, come from "where"?. Is this hebrew original ancient copies of scripture, or has it been translated from the K.J.V verses you quote from "into" hebrew? :P

Link to comment
My 'first" issue with the entire question is that the hebrew verses you are refferancing, come from "where"?. Is this hebrew original ancient copies of scripture, or has it been translated from the K.J.V verses you quote from "into" hebrew? :P

No, there's no translating from English back into Hebrew. I'm using the BHS, which is based on the Masoretic manuscripts.

Link to comment
I found something interesting in Judges 19 while doing some reading for my text and temples class. In verse 18 a man says (according to the KJV), "I went to Bethlehem-Judah, but I am now going to the house of the Lord." The "am now" part is italicized, though. I checked the Hebrew and the text reads as follows:

וָאֵלֵךְ עַד־בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוָה אֲנִי הֹלֵךְ

which, according to me, should be, "and I went to Bethlehem-Judah, and I was going to the house of the Lord."

There is no justification for the interpolation of "but now" unless you insist on interpreting the participle as present tense, which doesn't make sense considering the man has already stated he's going home to "the far side of mount Ephraim," which is quite a ways from Jerusalem. The LXX has "and I am going to my house" instead of "the house of the Lord," but it has been effectively argued that the Greek translation mistook a single yod, an abbreviation for the tetragrammaton, for the first person singular pronominal suffix.

Was there an Israelite temple (or tabernacle) in Bethlehem during the time of the judges? I don't see any reason why not.

I am not proficient like you, but the Hebrew does indeed read 'house of the Lord', but it probably refers the tabernacle shrine that was located in Shiloh. The Anchor Bible Dictionary states,

To avoid contradiction, he therefore interprets 2 Sam 7:6â??7 (from a source) to distinguish between a site elected for YHWHâ??s residence and a site elected to house a temple. His formulation, â??I never elected a city from among all the tribes of Israel to build a temple for my name to be thereâ? (1 Kgs 8:16), echoes Deut 12:5, which speaks of â??the place that YHWH your god will elect from among all your tribes to put his name there, for it to dwell.â? But it carefully states that no town was elected before Zion
for a temple
â??the qualification leaves open the possibility that other towns, such as Shiloh, but not their temples, were previously â??chosen places.â? Again, this is the posture of the Deuteronomistic movement in the late 7th centuryâ??the posture reflected in Joshua.

#_ftnref1Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:1214). New York: Doubleday.

Link to comment
No, there's no translating from English back into Hebrew. I'm using the BHS, which is based on the Masoretic manuscripts.

I do know you might think i,m crazy? but what is the BHS and what do you mean "based" on Masoertic manuscripts? Is it original scripture or not? :P

Link to comment
That's a possibility.

A little more from the Anchor Dictionary...

Whether Shiloh had a temple (Eissfeldt 1957:146) is disputed (Cross 1981:173â??74; Haran 1985:1998â??204). The textual evidence is ambiguous. On the one hand, 1 Sam 1:9 and other nearby texts speak of the establishment in Shiloh as one with regular architectural features: a â??nave,â? a â??doorjamb,â? â??doorsâ? (3:15); there are also references to a â??house,â? though whether this always implies an enclosed temple is unsure. On the other hand, as noted above, 2 Sam 7:6â??7 denies that YHWH had had a â??house of cedarâ? prior to Solomonâ??s building; he had â??roved about in a tent and in a tabernacleâ? (the parallel in 1 Chr 17:5 is corrupt). Ps 78:60â??61 seem to concur: these verses make no mention of a temple. Which is it? Was the Shilonite shrine a temple or an open-air sanctuary? The passages that imply the presence of a temple in Shiloh certainly stem from the sources used by DH, for as we have seen, he took the opposite view. In this connection, it is noteworthy that neither Ps 78:60 nor Jer 7:12 speaks of a temple at Shiloh, although both affirm that Shiloh was the â??chosen placeâ? before Jerusalem. Their concurrence with Dtr suggests a broad consensus among the reform movements of the 7th century: despite Shilohâ??s election, YHWH commissioned no temple before Solomonâ??sâ??in accordance with 2 Sam 7:6 and with the Deuteronomistic fixation on â??high places.â? Traditions of a temple in premonarchic Shiloh are probably the older, not the late traditions. The Deuteronomistic Historian, then, presumably took the references to the Shiloh temple to describe a sanctuary the construction of which had not been divinely ordainedâ??and indeed, no account of its construction is furnished. Too, that the sources of DH placed a temple at Shiloh does not guarantee that a temple was in fact there. However, one further element favors the sourcesâ?? view. Recent excavations have disclosed that the Shilonite cult had extensive architectural fixtures (Finkelstein 1985:169â??70). The floruit of the site and of its cultic component can be placed in the first half of the 11th century (Finkelstein 1985:170; S. Bunimovitz apud Finkelstein 1985:131â??38), on the eve of Israelâ??s monarchic revolution, just when the book of Samuel depicts it. See SEILUN, KHIRBET. And all scholars agree, the ark stood at Shilohâ??whether in a tent or a templeâ??until it was captured by Philistines (1 Samuel 4). Indeed, Shiloh sustained a destruction in the midâ??11th century, which scholars reasonably and unanimously ascribe to the aftermath of the Philistine victory in 1 Sam 4:10 (see Finkelstein 1985:173â??74). The traditions in Samuel appear reliable, including traditions of a temple.

Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:1214). New York: Doubleday.

Offhand it would appear that the site was considered holy and possibly the 'house of God' before the temple in Zion was built.

Link to comment
Was there an Israelite temple (or tabernacle) in Bethlehem during the time of the judges? I don't see any reason why not.

Mainstream scholars would say that there was only one recognized Tabernacle or Temple on the earth at one time, and the only Temple was on the Temple Mount. Although I know that this is a source of contention, particularly on this board

Link to comment
Mainstream scholars would say that there was only one recognized Tabernacle or Temple on the earth at one time, and the only Temple was on the Temple Mount. Although I know that this is a source of contention, particularly on this board

Are you referring as the source of contention the subject of the Elephantine writings and a temple there?

Link to comment

EbedOpinion.png

I do know you might think i,m crazy? but what is the BHS and what do you mean "based" on Masoertic manuscripts? Is it original scripture or not? :P

FYI:

"The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, or BHS, is an edition of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as preserved in the Leningrad Codex, and supplemented by masoretic and text-critical notes. It is published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society) in Stuttgart.

Authority

BHS is widely regarded (by Christians and Jews alike) as an accurate edition of the Hebrew scriptures, and a useful text-critical tool. It is the most widely used edition among biblical scholars." (Wikipedia)

My copy is about 2 inches thick and its weight is pretty hefty. I do not even pretend to be able to read it.

Link to comment
Mainstream scholars would say that there was only one recognized Tabernacle or Temple on the earth at one time, and the only Temple was on the Temple Mount. Although I know that this is a source of contention, particularly on this board

Mainstream scholars won't say that. Some fundamental religious scholars will say that, but not all of them.

Link to comment
Mainstream scholars won't say that. Some fundamental religious scholars will say that, but not all of them.

This subject came up several months ago, I emailed a couple of experts to get their opinion. I did get their permission to post their views.

Email 1 (Bart D. Ehrman)

Billy asks,

Bart,

1. You mention in your book on page 18 in Misquoting Jesus that the Jews only had one temple for worship, was this true throughout the history of the Jews? I was discussing this point on a BB and they said that this was not always the case. They mentioned that there was a functioning temple at Leontopolis and that there were recognized temples in pre-Josiah Judaism. Is this true or not?

Bart replies,

"Yes, it's true there was a temple at Leontopolis. I was summarizing what the majority of Jews in antiquity thought -- there are always fringe groups, in every religion!"

Email 2 (The Temple Institute--Jerusalem)

"Shalom xxxxx,

I apologize for not replying sooner to your email. No, there has never been more than one recognized Temple or Tabernacle at one time. Most famously, after the northern tribes broke away from Solomon's son Rehoboam. the new king of Israel, Jeroboam, built a Temple in Beit El where idolatry was practiced. Needless to say, this temple was not recognized.

Please feel free to share this information."

Link to comment
This subject came up several months ago, I emailed a couple of experts to get their opinion. I did get their permission to post their views.

Email 1 (Bart D. Ehrman)

Billy asks,

Bart,

1. You mention in your book on page 18 in Misquoting Jesus that the Jews only had one temple for worship, was this true throughout the history of the Jews? I was discussing this point on a BB and they said that this was not always the case. They mentioned that there was a functioning temple at Leontopolis and that there were recognized temples in pre-Josiah Judaism. Is this true or not?

Bart replies,

"Yes, it's true there was a temple at Leontopolis. I was summarizing what the majority of Jews in antiquity thought -- there are always fringe groups, in every religion!"

Email 2 (The Temple Institute--Jerusalem)

"Shalom xxxxx,

I apologize for not replying sooner to your email. No, there has never been more than one recognized Temple or Tabernacle at one time. Most famously, after the northern tribes broke away from Solomon's son Rehoboam. the new king of Israel, Jeroboam, built a Temple in Beit El where idolatry was practiced. Needless to say, this temple was not recognized.

Please feel free to share this information."

I'm wondering why even the Jewish Encyclopedia affirms the validity of the Temple of Onias, if it was merely meant for a "fringe group." Also, one wonders why the individuals at Leontopolis felt justified in petitioning the satrap of Judah to help finance the rebuilding of the Temple after it was destroyed and looted by the priests of Khnum (and more importantly, given that the sanctuary was indeed rebuilt, it seems quite evident what Judahâ??s response was). Then again, maybe Judah was one of the "fringe groups."

Link to comment
I'm wondering why even the Jewish Encyclopedia affirms the validity of the Temple of Onias, if it was merely meant for a "fringe group." Also, one wonders why the individuals at Leontopolis felt justified in petitioning the satrap of Judah to help finance the rebuilding of the Temple after it was destroyed and looted by the priests of Khnum (and more importantly, given that the sanctuary was indeed rebuilt, it seems quite evident what Judahâ??s response was). Then again, maybe Judah was one of the "fringe groups."

Why don't you email the Temple Institute and ask them?

http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm

http://www.templeinstitute.org/feedback.htm (email)

Link to comment

I happen to be in the same class as Maklelan. Billy, I suggest reading the article we have (though it's copyrighted so I can't just post it without permission). The name of the article is:

Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School" by Menahem Haran. Winona Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns, 1985. pp 26-42.

It is concluded from PURELY scriptural accounts that there were 12 legitimate temples mentioned in the BIBLICAL text. Arad is a possible 13th only know by archeology, though in this article it is presented with caution advised.

I would love to personally discuss this article on here with you Billy, so if you can read it, let's talk.

Link to comment
Why don't you email the Temple Institute and ask them?

http://www.templeinstitute.org/main.htm

http://www.templeinstitute.org/feedback.htm (email)

Because it's evident what their response will be. 'Tis like asking me why don't I email Saints Alive In Jesus to find the scholarly view regarding Mormonism. Often ideology trumps facts. Even though Onias IV would have been the legitimate high priest if it were not for Jason's bribe to Tobias (and despite the bribe, he was still a high priest), and even though the colony enjoyed positive relations with Judah, and even though it continued to operate until the Romans closed it down in 73 CE(!), individuals who have a vested interest in denying the existence of recognized (and legitimate) temples outside of Jerusalem will always deny the fact that this was not the case.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the mantra of â??There was only one temple, there was only one temple, there was only one templeâ? will always be chanted by some.

Link to comment
Because it's evident what their response will be. 'Tis like asking me why don't I email Saints Alive In Jesus to find the scholarly view regarding Mormonism. Often ideology trumps facts. Even though Onias IV would have been the legitimate high priest if it were not for Jason's bribe to Tobias (and despite the bribe, he was still a high priest), and even though the colony enjoyed positive relations with Judah, and even though it continued to operate until the Romans closed it down in 73 CE(!), individuals who have a vested interest in denying the existence of recognized (and legitimate) temples outside of Jerusalem will always deny the fact that this was not the case.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the mantra of â??There was only one temple, there was only one temple, there was only one templeâ? will always be chanted by some.

I am not saying that you have to agree with their answer, but why assume that your answer is correct and their answer is incorrect without even giving them the opportunity to at least give you an answer.

Link to comment
I am not saying that you have to agree with their answer, but why assume that your answer is correct and their answer is incorrect without even giving them the opportunity to at least give you an answer.

They have already given an answer:

"No, there has never been more than one recognized Temple or Tabernacle at one time."

Edited to add:

Billy,

I would like to apologize for the tone of my last few posts. I don't know why, but I'm a little on edge this morning and you were the unfortunate victim of it. Sorry.

Link to comment
Is this out of print? I can only find used copies for sale.

I believe it is out of print. I'm sure I can write and get permission to share it though. It's 20 years old, so there is more up-to-date info on archeological sides out there, but its use of scripture references is still quite good. I'll see what I can do.

And for the record (for Billy's benefit): The author is very cautionary about several of the possible temples. This is not some gung-ho temple seeker.

Link to comment
Maybe they are wrong and you could convince them to your point of view.

I don't believe I've ever convinced someone of my point of view... but I appreciate the vote of confidence. I believe I'll go ahead though and compile eveything I have and send them an email (if for nothing more than to say I tried).

On a more serious note, thank you for maintaining a kosher tone while I was being brutish. I'm a bit grumpy this morning and you're the unfortunate first victim of it (sorry).

Link to comment
I don't believe I've ever convinced someone of my point of view... but I appreciate the vote of confidence. I believe I'll go ahead though and compile eveything I have and send them an email (if for nothing more than to say I tried).

On a more serious note, thank you for maintaining a kosher tone while I was being brutish. I'm a bit grumpy this morning and you're the unfortunate first victim of it (sorry).

It took about a week or so before I got a response from them. Will you let us know what they say?

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...