Was There An Israelite Temple In Bethlehem?

[Doctor Steuss]

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

If they give permission for their response to be shared, yes.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Lest this slip by without being addressed:

Billy, will you kindly review the link provided by Dr. Hamblin? It is very well done and covers the scriptural references well. Until I can get permission for the article, I would like to discuss (in a scholarly manner) the points made therein.

Matt

[maklelan]

Billy, you've simply posted an appeal to authority, which means nothing to me. Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, and I couldn't care less what his thoughts on Israelite temples are. In addition, citing one agnostic scholar and one fundamental religious group in no way whatsoever substantiates your claim that most mainstream scholars accept that there was only one temple. The temple at Arad is very clearly an Israelite temple, and it was operational from Solomon's day all the way to Josiah's when he centralized worship in Jerusalem and vilified all other cultic practices and places. Leontopolis also had a temple, but even more important is the temple in Elephantine, which was rebuilt when Egyptian Jews wrote to authorities in Jerusalem asking for permission and funds for rebuilding the temple. I'll gather mainstream sources that show it's considered a given that Israelites recognized more than one temple prior to Josiah's reforms.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] the temple in Elephantine, which was rebuilt when Egyptian Jews wrote to authorities in Jerusalem asking for permission and funds for rebuilding the temple. [...]

For some reason, my memory was/is latched onto the idea that it was the temple in Leontopolis that had petitioned Judah (after the priests of Khnum had their looting and destruction party).

Billy, et.al., I defer to Maklelan that it was instead the Elephantine temple (my apologies for my faulty memory).

[Billy]

Billy, you've simply posted an appeal to authority, which means nothing to me.

You mean that you simply disregard the position of experts in the field because they do not agree with you?

I will be the first to state that I am not an expert in this area, in fact I would say that I don't even reach amateur status. But that does not limit me from seeking the position of experts in the field to get their opinion and why they believe that way that they do. My intent was to show that there are two important conflicting ideas AMONG experts namely one side feels that there has only been one temple (tabernacle) on the earth at one time and the location of the next Jewish Temple requires that it be placed somewhere on the Temple Mount (various ideas of the exact location). The other point of view is that there are multiple RECOGNIZED temples in different locations that have existed during Israel's history. Both theories can't BOTH be true.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

You mean that you simply disregard the position of experts in the field because they do not agree with you?

I will be the first to state that I am not an expert in this area, in fact I would say that I don't even reach amateur status. But that does not limit me from seeking the position of experts in the field to get their opinion and why they believe that way that they do. My intent was to show that there are two important conflicting ideas AMONG experts namely one side feels that there has only been one temple (tabernacle) on the earth at one time and the location of the next Jewish Temple requires that it be placed somewhere on the Temple Mount (various ideas of the exact location). The other point of view is that there are multiple RECOGNIZED temples in different locations that have existed during Israel's history. Both theories can't BOTH be true.

Billy, the point is that NEITHER of the two people you mentioned are experts in this field. Erhman is a NT scholar and the other guys are dogmatic theologians whose whole site and mission involve one purpose: bringing back the Solomonic temple.

There are NO experts that I am aware of that deny other temples that were considered legitimate. Furthermore, I would appreciate your input and take on the website that Dr. Hamblin has posted. Based SOLELY on the Bible, we see that there were multiple temples and that Biblical prophets frequented and used them.

[Billy]

There are NO experts that I am aware of that deny other temples that were considered legitimate.

Except the two that I mentioned.

The fact that you disqualified them based on your criteria, does not mean that they are not experts. I could do the same for your expert, stating that he is not an expert because he is biased. As noted on the top line of the blog it states, "Explorations of ancient Temple and Ascent traditions from an LDS perspective". But I will bookmark Bill's website and take a look at it.

[Anijen]

You mean that you simply disregard the position of experts in the field because they do not agree with you?

I will be the first to state that I am not an expert in this area, in fact I would say that I don't even reach amateur status. But that does not limit me from seeking the position of experts in the field to get their opinion and why they believe that way that they do. My intent was to show that there are two important conflicting ideas AMONG experts namely one side feels that there has only been one temple (tabernacle) on the earth at one time and the location of the next Jewish Temple requires that it be placed somewhere on the Temple Mount (various ideas of the exact location). The other point of view is that there are multiple RECOGNIZED temples in different locations that have existed during Israel's history. Both theories can't BOTH be true.

No he is saying your experts are are not in position to agree with him. Frankly the two you cited I would not count as "most mainstream scholars." As stated one being a fundamentalist group with bias and the other an expert but not an expert on Old Testament temples.

CFR on your" two important conflicting ideas AMONG experts"

Both theories can't BOTH be true.

True but they are past the theories stage, there is archaeological evidence of other temples

[Anijen]

Except the two that I mentioned.

The fact that you disqualified them based on your criteria, does not mean that they are not experts. I could do the same for your expert, stating that he is not an expert because he is biased. As noted on the top line of the blog it states, "Explorations of ancient Temple and Ascent traditions from an LDS perspective". But I will bookmark Bill's website and take a look at it.

Billy the link Dr. Hamblin provided is not an LDS link therefore any bias (if there is any) would not be for the LDS.

[Billy]

CFR on your" two important conflicting ideas AMONG experts"

I think that this came up before in the thread titled "Levitical Priesthood" back in Mar 2008

Bill Hamblin "Levitical Priesthood Mar 25 2008, 11:06 PM"

"It should also be noted that, although theoretically High Priests had to be from the house of Zadok, from the time of the Hasmoneans on, 153 BCE to AD 67, almost all High Priests were non-Zadokites. Ironically, Onias IV, the son of the last Zadokite High Priest Onias III (who was deposed by the Seleucid Antiochus IV in 175 BCE), went to Egypt where he built a Jewish temple at Leontopolis, where, presumably, his descendants served as (what was in their eyes the legitimate) Zadokite High Priests while the temple of Jerusalem was served by non-Zadokite High Priests. (VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 188-122)

Verses

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!"

Both theories can't BOTH be true.

True but they are past the theories stage, there is archaeological evidence of other temples

Nobody has said that other temples were not constructed, the question is were they officially recognized. If you go back to the email quotes you will see that both acknowledge other temples

[maklelan]

You mean that you simply disregard the position of experts in the field because they do not agree with you?

No, not at all. I explained my position, and you've ignored it to simply couch my argument in the most infantile manner possible. Simply put, Bart Ehrman is not an expert in the field. He is an expert in New Testament studies, but not in ancient Israelite cult practices. His own webpage lists his specialties as the following:

New Testament Interpretation; History of Ancient Christianity (first three centuries), especially Orthodoxy and Heresy, Formation of the Canon, NT Manuscript Tradition, Historical Jesus, and Apostolic Fathers

I'm much more of an expert in Israelite temples than he is. As far as the fundamental religious group you cited, their entire ideology is built upon the idea of one central temple. Why on earth would they even take seriously a theory that absolutely undermines their foundational beliefs? They're far too biased to be considered a part of mainstream scholarship. You have yet to provide a single example of mainstream scholarship supporting the single temple theory, much less any kind of consensus toward it.

I will be the first to state that I am not an expert in this area, in fact I would say that I don't even reach amateur status.

I realized that when you tried to pawn off Bart Ehrman as an expert in Israelite temple ideology.

But that does not limit me from seeking the position of experts in the field to get their opinion and why they believe that way that they do. My intent was to show that there are two important conflicting ideas AMONG experts namely one side feels that there has only been one temple (tabernacle) on the earth at one time and the location of the next Jewish Temple requires that it be placed somewhere on the Temple Mount (various ideas of the exact location). The other point of view is that there are multiple RECOGNIZED temples in different locations that have existed during Israel's history. Both theories can't BOTH be true.

Correct. The former is false and the latter is true. We have the physical evidence. We have the textual evidence. Please see the following publications for examples of actual mainstream scholars advocating that fact:

J. Miller, John Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986).

Yohanan Aharoni and Anson Rainey, "Arad: An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh," Biblical Archaeology Review 13.2 (1987): 16â??35.

Yohanan Aharoni, â??The Israelite Sanctuary at Arad,â? in David Noel Freedman and Jonas C. Greenfield, eds., New Directions in Biblical Archaeology (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 28â??44.

Anson Rainey, Hezekiahâ??s Reform and the Altars at Beer-sheba and Arad,â? in M.D. Coogan, et al., eds. Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 333-54.

Zeâ??ev Herzog, â??The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History of Religion in Judah,â? in A. Mazar, ed., Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (JSOTSup 331; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 156-78.

D. Ussisskin, â??The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad,â? IEJ 38 (1988): 142â??57.

Stephen G. Rosenberg, "The Jewish Temple at Arad," Near Eastern Archaeology 67.1 (2004): 4â??13.

N. Meyer, Elephantine: The Foundation of the Jewish Temple at Yeb (Master's Thesis, California State University, 2007).

Michael M. Homan, "The Tabernacle and the Temple in Ancient Israel," Religion Compass 1.1 (2007): 38â??49.

I suggest you do some more research before you so flippantly dismiss the research and conclusions of people who know far more about this than you.

[Billy]

I'm much more of an expert in Israelite temples than he is.

Where can I find some of your writings? I will try your blog

Addendum

Why do you think that the Jews do not rebuild their temple in another location other than the Temple Mount? Why not build it someplace else in Israel, and if the Temple Mount were to ever open up they could relocate at that point?

As far as the fundamental religious group you cited, their entire ideology is built upon the idea of one central temple. Why on earth would they even take seriously a theory that absolutely undermines their foundational beliefs? They're far too biased to be considered a part of mainstream scholarship.

Is it possible that your religious beliefs may cause you to be biased?

[maklelan]

Where can I find some of your writings?

I'll do you one better and invite you to a conference I'm holding on November 7 at BYU on temples and ritual in antiquity. You can find information on it here. If you want to wait until the paper gets published it will be about a year. On the other hand, the fact alone that I have formal professional training in Israelite history and Semitic languages puts me ahead of Ehrman.

Is it possible that your religious beliefs may cause you to be biased?

Of course it's possible. There's not a single human being on this planet that has any conclusions that are free from the possibility of bias. The difference is I can support my conclusions with facts. You claimed mainstream scholarship supported your conclusion, and yet you provide only a non-specialist and a fundamentalist religious group. That doesn't even begin to satisfy the criterion. I provided you with several publications from the recognized authorities on the subject. You have refused to responded to that. Your conclusion is in the throes of death here unless you can provide some actual argument instead of just lobbing suspicion at my qualifications.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Rather than respond specifically, I second everything that Maklelan said as my reply Billy.

Additionally, look beyond Arad. Or rather, look less. You honestly do not have to go further than the Bible (which I know how happy you'll be about that as I am not appealing to non-Biblical sources) to realize that there are 12 temples (maybe 11, one or two could have confused locations and be the same as another) mentioned in the text. Several Biblical prophets (some with books named after them) performed ordinances in them. I find it a rather large bite to swallow to conceive that these men, whom we both believed were called of God, would perform and sanction sacred ordinances and rites in a profane temple that God did not sanction. So either there were sanctioned temples outside of Jerusalem or the Bible is flat out wrong or the prophets of God were defiling the ordinances of God.... you take you pick, but I'm going with the first option.

[Billy]

I provided you with several publications from the recognized authorities on the subject. You have refused to responded to that. Your conclusion is in the throes of death here unless you can provide some actual argument instead of just lobbing suspicion at my qualifications.

If you go back and read my posts I have never questioned the credentials or qualifications of the experts on either side of the argument, rather that is something that you did, that is why I called both sides experts. I did bring up bias, but this is in response to your comment in a previous post "They're far too biased to be considered a part of mainstream scholarship", I was simply pointing out that we are all biased to some degree. You don't seem to disagree with me over the fact that there is a controversy, but object to me using the term "mainstream" rather than the term "fundamental religious scholar". I have no problem retracting the term "mainstream" if you prefer and replacing it with "fundamental religious scholar", but this does not get rid of the controversy.

Billy states,

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

Maklelan replies,

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

[maklelan]

If you go back and read my posts I have never questioned the credentials or qualifications of the experts on either side of the argument, rather that is something that you did, that is why I called both sides experts. I did bring up bias, but this is in response to your comment in a previous post "They're far too biased to be considered a part of mainstream scholarship", I was simply pointing out that we are all biased to some degree. You don't seem to disagree with me over the fact that there is a controversy, but object to me using the term "mainstream" rather than the term "fundamental religious scholar". I have no problem retracting the term "mainstream" if you prefer and replacing it with "fundamental religious scholar", but this does not get rid of the controversy.

No, but it does make it clear that the more objective and respected scholars recognize the fact that Israelite temples were in operation all over Israel. None of the experts conclude that there was only one unless they have a strong ideological investment in one worldview, and those scholar tend to stay out of the mainstream. My argument has been from the beginning that this statement, made by you, is demonstrably false:

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.

You've been completely unable to produce even one mainstream scholar that supported the one temple theory. You provided a non-specialist commenting on a specific time frame and a fundamental religious group. I have provided several mainstream scholars that agree unilaterally that there were several operating (and recognized) temples in Israel. Your statement is false. If you disagree, please provide documentation. I will respond to no further posts that lack documentation.

[maklelan]

Addendum

Why do you think that the Jews do not rebuild their temple in another location other than the Temple Mount?

Ideological restrictions keep those groups from gaining enough political clout and money to actually build it, but several groups have already furnished the accouterments.

Why not build it someplace else in Israel,

Most of the groups will tell you it's because the site of the original temple is the only site approved by God. The groups that want to build elsewhere don't have the money and could never get the necessary people to vacate a large enough space in Jerusalem.

and if the Temple Mount were to ever open up they could relocate at that point?

That's a possibility, but you would probably get struck by lightening while going down in a plane crash while being eaten by sharks before that possibility would enter the realm of plausibility. The nation of Islam (a big nation) is not making known any plans to move.

[Billy]

Billy states,

and if the Temple Mount were to ever open up they could relocate at that point?

Maklelan replies,

That's a possibility, but you would probably get struck by lightening while going down in a plane crash while being eaten by sharks before that possibility would enter the realm of plausibility. The nation of Islam (a big nation) is not making known any plans to move.

The EV's feels that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt prior to Christ's return, the assumption is that it will be on the Temple Mount. I guess that this is not the position of the LDS?

One of the verses often used for the rational for a rebuilt temple is in the scripture below which seems to indicate that the antichrist will occupy the temple demanding worship prior to the second coming.

2 Thessalonians 2

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

[maklelan]

The EV's feels that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt prior to Christ's return, the assumption is that it will be on the Temple Mount. I guess that this is not the position of the LDS?

There are a few different opinions on that.

One of the verses often used for the rational for a rebuilt temple is in the scripture below which seems to indicate that the antichrist will occupy the temple demanding worship prior to the second coming.

2 Thessalonians 2

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

We interpret that as a clear indication that a great apostasy will take place. In our worldview, that's already occurred.

[Billy]

I'm much more of an expert in Israelite temples than he is. As far as the fundamental religious group you cited, their entire ideology is built upon the idea of one central temple. Why on earth would they even take seriously a theory that absolutely undermines their foundational beliefs?

Why do you think that the Jewish fundamental groups come up with the one central temple theory?

It would seem that it would serve their purposes to have many temples, or at least one functioning temple, rather than none. They could still have a centrally located body of leaders in Jerusalem that oversees the different temples. This would be similar to the LDS model that has a centrally located body of leaders to oversee the worldwide operation.

[Ron Beron]

Why do you think that the Jewish fundamental groups come up with the one central temple theory?

It is probably because they are as politically motivated as they are religiously.

[Billy]

A fellow named Grandpa Enoch has recently posted a blog discussing a number of different Israelite temples.

http://grandpaenoch.blogspot.com/

Perhaps Billy could read this and respond to the evidence presented there.

Exodus chapter 25-27 gives very specific details on what is included in the tabernacle

The Ark

The Table

The Lampstand

The Courtyard

Very specific dimensions

"Make the tabernacle with ten curtains of finely twisted linen and blue, purple and scarlet yarn, with cherubim worked into them by a skilled craftsman. 2 All the curtains are to be the same sizeâ??twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide. [a] 3 Join five of the curtains together, and do the same with the other five. 4 Make loops of blue material along the edge of the end curtain in one set, and do the same with the end curtain in the other set. 5 Make fifty loops on one curtain and fifty loops on the end curtain of the other set, with the loops opposite each other. 6 Then make fifty gold clasps and use them to fasten the curtains together so that the tabernacle is a unit. . .(on and on about requirements)"

Going to the link (below or just the first two examples from that link)

1. Gilgal

Joshua 4:3 "and tell them to take up twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan from right where the priests stood and to carry them over with you and put them down at the place where you stay tonight."

1 Sam 11:15 "14 Then Samuel said to the people, "Come, let us go to Gilgal and there reaffirm the kingship." 15 So all the people went to Gilgal and confirmed Saul as king in the presence of the LORD. There they sacrificed fellowship offerings [a] before the LORD, and Saul and all the Israelites held a great celebration."

They did fellowship offerings here at Gilgal where they had placed 12 stones from the middle of the Jordan. Yes they gave a fellowship offering, but this appears to be an altar, not a tabernacle, and no mention of any of the requirements as noted in the above Exodus chapters.

2. Ebal

Joshua 8:30-31 "The Covenant Renewed at Mount Ebal 30 Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal an altar to the LORD, the God of Israel, 31 as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the Israelites. He built it according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Mosesâ??an altar of uncut stones, on which no iron tool had been used. On it they offered to the LORD burnt offerings and sacrificed fellowship offerings.

Deuteronomy 27

The Altar on Mount Ebal

1 Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people: "Keep all these commands that I give you today. 2 When you have crossed the Jordan into the land the LORD your God is giving you, set up some large stones and coat them with plaster. 3 Write on them all the words of this law when you have crossed over to enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, just as the LORD, the God of your fathers, promised you. 4 And when you have crossed the Jordan, set up these stones on Mount Ebal, as I command you today, and coat them with plaster. 5 Build there an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones.

Joshua 8 appears to be in response to the command by Moses in Deut 27, which is speaking about an altar, but again no mention about the tabernacle or the articles that are present in the tabernacle.

Addendum

It also does not specify any restrictions on who can give an offering in the above examples, which in the temple/tabernacle is restricted to the priestly line from the tribe of Levi.

[Ron Beron]

Addendum

It also does not specify any restrictions on who can give an offering in the above examples, which in the temple/tabernacle is restricted to the priestly line from the tribe of Levi.

It also seems evident that those who were Zadokim were also able to officiate. Zadokim were appointed not because of their blood line, but because of their righteousness.

[Ron Beron]

sorry...double post

[Billy]

It also seems evident that those who were Zadokim were also able to officiate. Zadokim were appointed not because of their blood line, but because of their righteousness.

I am not familiar with the Zadokim exception.

Do you know what tribe that they were from? Did they officiate as priests? Do you have a Biblical reference or is this from a extra Biblical source?

Add on

Google search

http://imagine-that.itdontaddup.com/Others...n%20Essenes.htm

"Although the Ossaeans and the Beni-Zadokim may have been vegetarians like the Nazorean sect, it appears that they originally did so only as a temporary measure due to their inability to sacrifice animals in the Jerusalem Temple, or for other reasons. Their ultimate goal of the Beni-Zadokim was to recapture the Temple and slaughter animals after their own peculiar fashion prescribed in their Temple Scroll."

Is this the group that you are talking about?