The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Text-Critical and Historical Perspective (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161538377, 9783161538384, 3161538374

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

103

Peter Dubovsky´

The Building of the First Temple A Study in Redactional, Text-Critical and Historical Perspective

Mohr Siebeck

Peter Dubovsky´, born 1965; 1999 SSL; 2005 ThD; currently dean at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and professor of the Old Testament and history.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153838-4 ISBN 978-3-16-153837-7 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic s­ ystems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

To my friend John W. O’Malley

Preface The project that led to this book started in 2008 when I was preparing a course on 1 Kings 1–11 at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. It was completed thanks to a generous grant from Georgetown University, which offered me a Jesuit Chair (2014). This book would not have been possible without the constant support of my fellow Jesuits, my colleagues at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, and numerous friends and scholars.

Table of Contents Preface............................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations....................................................................................................XV

Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................1 1.1 Previous Studies on the Temple....................................................................2 1.2 The Premise of This Study............................................................................5 1.3 Precursors of This Project.............................................................................6 1.4 The Design of This Project...........................................................................8

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East......... 10 2.1 Inscriptions from the West .........................................................................12 2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions.........................................................................14 2.2.1 The Emashmash Temple in Nineveh................................................15 2.2.2 Esarhaddon’s Reconstruction of Cult Places....................................18 The reconstruction of Esharra in Assur............................................19 The reconstruction of Esagil in Babylon..........................................20 Other temples....................................................................................21 Theological justification...................................................................22 2.2.3 Neo-Assyrian Letters........................................................................24 2.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................27

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?.....................................29

X

Table of Contents

3.1 Methodological Premises............................................................................30 3.2 Temple Repairs...........................................................................................32 Literary analysis of two narratives..............................................................32 The extent of the repairs ............................................................................35 Conclusion..................................................................................................38 3.3 Natural Disasters.........................................................................................39 Conclusion..................................................................................................41 3.4 Despoliation of the Temple.........................................................................41 Storehouse or storeroom?...........................................................................42 Was the treasury altered? ...........................................................................43 Conclusion..................................................................................................47 3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple......................................47 3.5.1 Jehoiada and Joash............................................................................48 The temple stratum of 2 Kgs 11........................................................50 Conclusion........................................................................................52 3.5.2 Ahaz’s Reform .................................................................................52 3.5.2.1 Ahaz’s New Altar ...............................................................53 Was the new altar condemned or approved?.......................53 What kind of altar did Ahaz commission?..........................56 Why was this altar important?.............................................59 Conclusion...........................................................................59 3.5.2.2 Other Changes in the Temple..............................................60 Removal of Bronze Objects.................................................60 Installation of a pavement...................................................61 3.5.2.3 Crux Interpretum ................................................................62 Scribal error or abbreviation?..............................................62 Removed, surrounded, reoriented, or transferred?..............63 The meaning of ‫הׁשבת מיסך‬............................................ 65 The royal entrance...............................................................67 Possible interpretations of 2 Kgs 16:18...............................68 3.5.2.4 Synthesis: Ahaz and the Architecture of the Temple ..........69 3.5.3 Hezekiah – Manasseh, Amon – Josiah.............................................70 3.5.3.1 Hezekiah’s Reform..............................................................70 3.5.3.2 The Reforms of Manasseh and Amon.................................72 Changes in the temple furniture..........................................74 Two courts...........................................................................75 Conclusion...........................................................................76 3.5.3.3 Josiah’s Reform...................................................................76 Literary style of the account ...............................................76

Table of Contents

XI

Houses, chambers, and gardens...........................................79 3.5.3.4 Conclusion...........................................................................81 3.6 Specific Architectural Changes...................................................................82 3.6.1 Temple and Palace Gates in the Book of Kings................................82 Temple and palace gates in the time of Jehoiada and Joash.................. 83 Jotham’s gate....................................................................................83 3.6.2 The Temple Complex in Jeremiah....................................................85 Gates.................................................................................................85 Chambers..........................................................................................87 Courts................................................................................................88 Conclusion........................................................................................89 3.6.3 The Temple Complex in Ezekiel.......................................................90 Gates.................................................................................................91 Courts................................................................................................93 Rooms...............................................................................................94 Conclusion........................................................................................95 3.7 Synthesis.....................................................................................................96 Motives for the changes..............................................................................96 Who was credited with alterations to the temple?......................................97 What changes were made?..........................................................................97 Was the temple itself rebuilt?......................................................................99 3.7.1 Four Periods in the Architectural Evolution of the Temple ...........101 Archaeological evidence and the history of the temple..................105 3.7.2 Conclusion......................................................................................108

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text (1 Kgs 6–8) and Stratigraphy of the Temple.......................................................................109 4.1 Methodological Notes...............................................................................110 4.2 Architectural Terminology........................................................................112 4.2.1 Old and New Names for the Innermost Part of the Temple............112 The inner house...............................................................................112 The Holy of Holies ........................................................................116 4.2.2 Architectural and Theological Dimensions of hekal......................117 Nave or temple: Architectural note or theological statement?............. 118 Why was the house identified with the hekal?................................119 Cultic meaning................................................................................121 Theological meaning......................................................................122 The hekal as the main hall of the temple........................................124

XII

Table of Contents

4.2.3 Conclusion......................................................................................125 4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure.........................................................125 4.3.1 Unresolved Questions.....................................................................126 4.3.2 Variants and Versions......................................................................127 4.3.3 Textual Strata..................................................................................132 Glosses in 1 Kgs 6:5.......................................................................132 1 Kgs 6:7, 9.....................................................................................135 The oldest strata in 1 Kgs 6:5–10 ..................................................135 1 Kgs 6:5b–6 and 8.........................................................................137 4.3.4 Synthesis.........................................................................................140 4.4 The ulam...................................................................................................144 4.4.1 The ulam and the Temple in Ezekiel...............................................145 The ulam as a hall of the temple gates............................................145 The ulam as a vestibule of the temple building..............................146 4.4.2 The ulam and the Temple in Chronicles.........................................147 4.4.3 The ulam and the Palace in Kings..................................................150 4.4.4 The ulam and the Temple in 1 Kgs 7..............................................152 The ulam and the bronze columns..................................................154 4.4.5 The ulam in 3 Kgdms 6:36.............................................................155 4.4.6 The ulam in 1 Kgs 6:3....................................................................156 The versions....................................................................................156 The compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ע‬.ַ ..................................................157 Redactional layers...........................................................................159 4.4.7 Conclusion......................................................................................160 4.5 Dimensions of the Temple........................................................................163 4.5.1 Height of the Temple......................................................................164 4.5.2 Layout of the Temple......................................................................166 “Twenty cubits at the rear of the temple” (1 Kgs 6:16a)................167 The transformation of the debir into the Holy of Holies (1 Kgs 6:16b)..................................................................................169 Where was the debir?.....................................................................172 4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple?...............................................................174 A temple of undressed stone.....................................................................175 A temple paneled with cedar wood...........................................................176 A temple of cedar wood............................................................................178 Dressed stone............................................................................................180 Conclusion................................................................................................183 4.7 Decoration of the Temple..........................................................................186

Table of Contents

XIII

Engraved decorations......................................................................187 Overlaying with gold......................................................................189 Phases of the temple decoration.....................................................191 4.8 The Cherubs..............................................................................................193 4.8.1 Textual Witnesses...........................................................................193 4.8.2 The Cherubs according to the Masoretic Text................................197 Ruptures in MT and textual strata...................................................198 Stratum A (1 Kgs 6:23–24).............................................................200 Stratum B (1 Kgs 6:25–27).............................................................201 Stratum C (1 Kgs 6:28)...................................................................202 4.8.3 The Cherubs according to Codex Vaticanus (B).............................202 4.8.4 Location of the Cherubs..................................................................204 4.8.5 How Many Types of Cherubs?.......................................................205 4.9 Synthesis...................................................................................................207 4.9.1 Minimalist Proposal........................................................................208 4.9.2 Phases of the Temple: A Plausible Hypothesis...............................209 Phase I: Cedar temple (corresponding to Period I).........................209 Phase II: Tripartite temple with side-rooms (corresponding to Periods II and III)............................................................................. 210 Phase III: Urban temple (corresponding to Periods III and IV).....212

Chapter 5: Conclusion...............................................................................213 Bibliography.....................................................................................................217 Index of References..........................................................................................241 Index of Modern Authors..................................................................................255 Index of Subjects...............................................................................................262

Abbreviations A AB ABC

Codex Alexandrinus Anchor Bible A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources. Winona Lake, IN: , 2000 ABD D. N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 AD S. Parpola, ed., The Helsinki Neo-Assyrian Dictionary. [Chicago:] NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002 AEAD M. Luukko, Z. Cherry, G. v. Buylaere, R. M. Whiting, S. Donovan, S. Teppo, S. Parpola, and P. Gentili, Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Institute for Asian and African Studies University of Helsinki, 2007 AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AHw W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985 AJA American Journal of Archaeology ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ant. Antiochian text of the Septuagint, cited according to Fernández Marcos, Busto Saiz, et al., 1989–1996 Ant. Josephus, Antiquities AoF Altorientalische Forschungen B Codex Vaticanus BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BASS Beitrage zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907 BHS Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 BIWA R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996 BN Biblische Notizen BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 CAH Cambridge Ancient History CAT M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds., The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum CJB Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

XVI

Abbreviations

W. W. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002 A. R. George and M. Civil, Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2011 DB F. Vigouroux, ed., Dictionnaire de la Bible, 5 vols. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1895–1912 DCH D. J. A. Clines, ed., Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2012 EI Eretz-Israel EIN Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift (1980) EJ F. Skolnik and M. Berenbaum, eds., Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 22 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007 FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FBJ Bible de Jérusalem (1973) FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GELS J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003 GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautsch; 2nd English ed., rev. A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910 HAHw W. Gesenius et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18th ed., 6 vols. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1987–2012 HALOT L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, rev. ed., 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001 HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HThKat Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IEP Nuovissima versione della Bibbia (1995–1996) JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JM P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006 JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament KAI Donner, H., and W. Röllig. 2002. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 5th ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz KJV King James Version (1611) LA Liber Annuus LAS II S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, Part II: Commentary and Appendices. AOAT 5/2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983 LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies LND La Nuova Diodati (1991) LUT Lutherbibel (1984) LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NAB New American Bible, rev. ed. (2010) NAS New American Standard Bible (1977) NAU New American Standard Bible, updated ed. (1995) NEA Near Eastern Archaeology

COS CUSAS

Abbreviations NETS NIDB NIV NJB NRSV NRT NRV OL Or OTL PEQ PJ RA RB RIMA RIMB RINAP SAA SAAB SSI 3 SVT TA TDOT TNK TOB VT WBC WVDOG ZA ZAW ZDPV

XVII

A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009 New International Version (2011) New Jerusalem Bible (1985) New Revised Standard Version (1989) Nouvelle Revue Theologique La Sacra Bibbia Nuova Riveduta (1994) Old Latin Orientalia Old Testament Library Palestine Exploration Quarterly Palästinajahrbuch des deutschen evangelischen Instituts Revue d’Assyriologie Revue Biblique The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, vol. 3, Phoenician Inscriptions, including Inscriptions in the Mixed Dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982 Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Tel Aviv G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 15 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Tanak: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation (1985) Traduction œcuménique de la Bible (1988) Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Chapter 1

Introduction No other building of the ancient world, either while it stood in Jerusalem or in the millennia since its final destruction, has been the focus of so much attention throughout the ages. —C. Meyers1

The origins of this study lie in a course on 1 Kgs 1–11 I offered at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in 2008. Immersing myself in the ocean of scholarly and popular writings on the temple of Jerusalem, I quickly noticed that authors explore the theme from a variety of angles and that they are often influenced by various religious and scholarly presuppositions, or even prejudices. Sorting through the approaches that writers have chosen, it is impossible to overlook the curiosity – and perplexity – the temple has been causing for centuries. The reasons for the never-ending curiosity are obvious. On the one hand, temples were and still are the most sacred buildings ever built on earth. They are special places where humans can encounter the divine. Temples mediate a mysterious contact between God and people; they are places to which people flow to offer their petitions and to praise God. Temples provide refuge for the rich and the poor alike (cf. 1 Kgs 8). On the other hand, a temple is also a historical memory, encoded in the form of a monument, that bears witness to how a given society thought about divinity and imagined its expression. For this reason temples and their beauty are the product of the best that the human intellect can devise in terms of architecture, statuary, and painting. People do not hesitate to part with their gold in order to turn their temples into the most precious buildings in their land. The temple of Jerusalem is no exception. The multiplicity of themes, architectural innovations, and cultic performances embraced by the temple of Jerusalem has stirred the creativity of painters and novelists and the curiosity of scholars. Built three thousand years ago, Solomon’s temple is one of the most significant and enduring cultural icons in the world. Although beginning as a rather small royal cultic center of a provincial ancient Near Eastern kingdom of only

1

Meyers 1992, 6:350.

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

moderate wealth and power, Solomon’s temple managed to capture the spirit and imagination of men and women like no other building in history.2 The angle from which this book studies the temple of Jerusalem can be illustrated by an analogy. Tourists, artists, scholars, and pilgrims are deeply impressed by St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Maderno’s façade, Bernini’s baldachin, and the architectural genius of Bramante, Raphael, and Michelangelo leave even the most demanding visitors breathless. However, relatively few visitors have entered the archaeological area under the basilica and explored the simple cultic site of the second–third century CE that lies under Bernini’s baldachin. Suppose that early Christians used to visiting a simple shrine beyond the Tiber were to be catapulted into the future and to find themselves standing in St. Peter’s Basilica. Would they recognize it? How would they react? Would they be astounded or shocked? Similarly, suppose that a priest who had served at the dedication of the temple of Jerusalem was transported to the temple just before the Babylonian invasion. What would be his reaction? Would he recognize the temple? Would he consider it the same temple he used to serve in? In more technical terms, this book deals with the development of the temple of Jerusalem between its construction in the tenth century BCE and its destruction in the sixth century BCE. The example of St. Peter’s Basilica prompts the question, Did the temple of Jerusalem change between the reigns of Solomon and Zedekiah? Do we have any evidence to prove either that the temple was altered in shape and appearance over the years, or that it remained untouched for four centuries? The best answer to this question would be provided by archaeologists unearthing the strata of the temple. A complete stratigraphy of the Temple Mount, however, will not be available anytime soon, and in any case archaeological reconstructions must always be evaluated in light of the extant textual evidence. That is the site excavated in this monograph. Examining biblical and extrabiblical texts, I try to determine whether textual evidence indicates that the preexilic temple of Jerusalem changed or remained untouched over the course of four centuries.

1.1 Previous Studies on the Temple Anyone who ventures to dive into the ocean of literature written about the temple of Jerusalem will soon realize that merely compiling an exhaustive bibliography would require a few volumes.3 The Bible itself presents three different descriptions of the temple (1 Kgs 6–7; 2 Chr 2–7; Ezek 40–46). Early interpreters did not hesitate to add their own contributions to the traditional accounts of the Hamblin and Seely 2007, 6. For a short summary of previous scholarship see Balfour 2012, 6–28. Studies geared toward a broader audience include Comay 1975; Peters 1985, 13–18; Edersheim 1987; Lundquist 2000; Lundquist 2008; and Balfour 2012, 21–33. 2 3

1.1 Previous Studies on the Temple

3

temple, as in the case of the Temple Scroll unearthed at Qumran and Josephus’s description of the temple. Likewise, modern researchers keep reconstructing, reviewing, and redesigning the temple.4 Without pretending to distill the ocean of bibliography on the temple into a few paragraphs, let me divide the scholarly literature into four groups. The first group of temple studies represents the commentaries on the three biblical books of 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Ezekiel. Some commentaries have become landmarks in the development of temple scholarship, in particular those on the book of Kings, including the work of J. A. Montgomery (1951), M. Noth (1968), J. Gray (1970, 1976), E. Würthwein (1977, 1984), M. Cogan and H. Tadmor (1988, 2001), and M. J. Mulder (1998). These scholars questioned previous studies and ventured to present new hypotheses. Other commentaries also rigorously addressed the temple’s construction and its history and presented new insights or critically evaluated previous proposals.5 In addition to the commentaries, scholars have dedicated entire studies to the temple of Jerusalem. The most flourishing group of temple studies includes those that pursue a “traditional” reconstruction of the preexilic temple. The members of this group use biblical and extrabiblical literary and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the temple.6 Some monographs, including those of P. L.-H. Vincent and P. A.-M. Steve (1956), T. A. Busink (1970), and W. Zwickel (1999), constitute classics in temple scholarship.7 To this group can be added entries in major encyclopedias that presented new evaluations of the biblical and extrabiblical evidence.8 The analyses of biblical texts, the collections of extrabiblical material, and especially the critical evaluations of temple models contained in the “traditional” studies make them an invaluable mine of ideas, examples, and possible reconstructions. Along the same lines, it would be possible to present For example, Gutmann 1976; Antonio Ramirez 1991; Martin 2000; Morrison 2011. Among the older commentaries may be recommended those of C. Keil (1872), O. Thenius (1873), I. Benzinger (1899), R. Kittel and W. Nowack (1900), C. F. Burney (1903), B. Stade and F. Schwally (1904), W. E. Barnes (1908), J. R. Lumby (1909), A. Šanda (1911, 1912), P. N. Schlögl (1911), and S. K. Landersdorfer (1927); among the more recent ones, those of S. Garofalo (1951), V. Fritz (1977), G. Hentschel (1984, 1985), G. H. Jones (1984), R. D. Nelson (1987), B. O. Long (1991), J. T. Walsh (1996), P. Buis (1997), I. W. Provan (1997), W. Brueggemann (2000), S. J. DeVries (2003), M. A. Sweeney (2007), M. Nobile (2010), and P. Zamora García (2011). 6 Salignac Fénelon 1904, F. 27; Cole 1920, 27–66; Thompson 1954, 14–19, 52; Parrot 1957; Klein and Klein 1970, 39–45; Comay 1975, 46–59; Davey 1980; Chyutin 1997; Laperrousaz 1999, 49–90; Stevens 2006, 36–41; Jericke 2010, 37–47; Vanhemelryck 2011. This approach is problematic since it does not take into account the historical development of the biblical texts, nor does it consider possible changes in the temple. For a critique of this approach, see, for example, Ouellette 1976, 1–5. 7 See in addition Smith 1907; Möhlenbrink 1932; Parrot 1954; and Hurowitz 1992. 8 Of particular importance are the articles by H. Lesétre (1912), C. Meyers (1992), and J. J. M. Roberts (2009). 4 5

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

an endless list of scholars from antiquity to the present who have attempted to reconstruct the whole temple or cast new light on some element of the temple building. Some of them will be discussed in the following chapters. While biblical scholars continued to produce “traditional” reconstructions of the temple, archaeologists were unearthing numerous examples of temples from the Levant that provided parallels to the biblical descriptions of the Jerusalem temple. The resulting comparative studies did not attempt to reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem, but rather to illuminate its context, its architectural forms, and the trends in which it participated. This scholarly effort took two forms. On the one hand, written documents from the Levant allowed scholars to contextualize the biblical building accounts; on the other hand, archaeological excavations of temples in the Levant provided numerous parallels to written descriptions of the temple of Jerusalem dating from the Iron Age II period.9 The first comparisons advanced by scholars relied heavily on Bronze Age temples, and on the basis of similarities between the excavated structures and the biblical text, the temple of Jerusalem was considered a migdol-type.10 Later, the excavation of the temple of Arad supplied an Iron II parallel for the temple of Jerusalem.11 Recently, the most frequently cited architectural parallels to the temple of Jerusalem have been the Iron II temples of Ain Dara and Tell Tainat.12 In recent decades some scholars have opened up new avenues for the study of the preexilic temple. Their goal is not to propose another reconstruction of the temple or to discuss some specific feature. Rather, they explore the temple from a theological, ideological, iconographic, or symbolic point of view.13 These scholars often draw on sociological theories on cult and temple, such as the segmentary model, according to which the temple of Jerusalem represents a static, centralized sacred place in contrast to the dynamic one represented by the tabernacle.14 According to these scholars, the temple materially represented the system of symbols that determined the beliefs and behavior of the people.15 Studying ideological aspects of the temple, C. M. McCormick concluded that “only when the reader understands that the controlling agenda is ideology and not accuracy and begins an investigation to perceive the ideology of the author are the

Welten 1972; Davey 1980; Ottosson 1980; Kohlmeyer 2000; Wilkinson 2000; Albers 2004a; Wightman 2006; Boda and Novotny 2010; Jericke 2010; Elkowicz 2012; Kamlah and Michelau 2012; Mierse 2012. 10 Lesétre 1912, 5:2038; Meyers 1992, 6:379. 11 Fritz 1977, 41–75. 12 Meyers 1992, 6:356. 13 Congar 1962; Clements 1965; Haran 1977; Dumas 1983; Ben-Dov 1985; van der Toorn 1997; Van Seters 1997; Kunin 1998; Lundquist 2000; McCormick 2002; Focant 2003; Barker 2004, 2011; Day 2007; Balfour 2012; Galil 2012. 14 Kunin 1998, 23–27. See also Smith 1987. 15 Dumas 1983; Berman 1995; Janowski 2002, 26–32; Sonnet 2003; Balfour 2012. 9

1.2 The Premise of This Study

5

difficulties resolved.” To this group we can also add studies that examine the building narrative in its canonical context or using synchronic methodologies.17 These ideological or symbolic approaches dealt with the disquieting question of the historicity of the biblical narrative in various ways, or ignored it altogether. Opinions on this key issue vary according to the approaches and methodological premises adopted. After a careful review of different positions, one of the most respected scholars in this field, V. A. Hurowitz, expressed his frustration with the results achieved to date and stated his own approach: 16

Given the complexity of the issues, and the fact that new finds, interpretations and methodologies constantly demand revisions in historical reconstruction, the present study will ignore the problems of the historicity of the biblical narrative and of the Temple itself, and focus on understanding what is described. Denying that it was Solomon who built the Temple does not imply that the Temple itself never existed. In fact, it makes no difference for its essence whether Solomon built it or someone else; nor is it of any significance whether it rose in one fell swoop in a single building project or whether it grew in stages over several generations.18

1.2 The Premise of This Study The question of historicity is closely linked with the question of when the biblical account was composed. Discussions of the historicity of the biblical accounts mentioning the temple of Jerusalem have a common denominator. If these biblical texts are a postexilic product, then the temple ascribed to Solomon is also a product of the religious imagination of a later author. On the contrary, if these biblical texts, or some sections thereof, can be dated to the preexilic period, then they may reflect the temple as it was before the destruction of Jerusalem. M. S. Smith’s reply to C. M. McCormick is a good example of this argument. Whereas McCormick dated the temple account to the postexilic period and thus excluded the possibility that the biblical texts might reflect the preexilic temple, Smith individuated pre-Deuteronomistic strata in 1 Kgs 6‒8 that could be used for the reconstruction of the preexilic temple.19 This kind of discussion, examples of which can be easily multiplied,20 shows that two extreme positions on the date of 1 Kgs 6–8 can no longer withstand scholarly critique. The first position is to date the whole account to Solomon, i.e., to the tenth century BC, and to assume that Solomon built the temple just as it is described in 1 Kgs 6‒8. The opposing McCormick 2002, 119–120. See, for example, Sonnet 2003, 2008. 18 Hurowitz 2005, 65. 19 Smith 2006, 277–281, responding to McCormick 2002. 20 Archaeological finds led some scholars to the conclusion that the temple as described in 1 Kgs 6–7 cannot be a mere literary fiction or an anachronistic account, since its architecture has parallels in temples constructed in the Levant during Iron Age II, in particular the temples of Ain Dara and Tell Tainat (Stager 1999, 187*). 16 17

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

position is to assume that the whole account is the product of later writers who needed to justify their political and religious politics, and therefore 1 Kgs 6–8 is the product of pious imagination and has nothing to do with reality. In other words, the temple of Jerusalem as described in 1 Kings was a religious icon and not a historical representation. To avoid these two methodological straits, this study must navigate the convoluted waters of diachronic and synchronic studies and confront archaeological and textual evidence from the Levant.

1.3 Precursors of This Project The goal of this study is to examine biblical and extrabiblical texts in order to determine whether the preexilic temple changed over time and, if so, to describe the changes. These questions are not new.21 The inconsistencies in the biblical accounts of the construction of the temple, its attribution to Solomon or to other kings, and the reconstruction of individual elements of the temple decorations and furniture have constituted for centuries a problem that exegetes have tried to resolve in various ways.22 Some scholars admit that it would be difficult to maintain a temple over such a long span of time without some degree of remodeling. This idea is neatly summarized by J. Gray: “It is hardly to be supposed that there had been no developments in the structure and decoration of the Temple in the four centuries since Solomon’s building.”23 C. Meyers connected the changes with monarchic power: “In the many centuries between Solomon’s implementation of the bold and visionary temple project of King David and its destruction at the hand of the Babylonians, the Temple underwent countless changes, some directly recorded in the Bible, some tangentially indicated, and others no doubt left unmentioned. All these alternations were related to some extent to the waxing and waning of monarchic power.”24 Alternatively, changes in the temple could have been motivated by changes in cult, theology, or the hierarchical organization of the group responsible for its maintenance. J. J. M. Roberts listed the most important changes in the temple and concluded, “It is apparent from even a cursory reading of these texts that the contents and even aspects of the physical structure of the temple complex changed over time.”25 Those who accept Horton’s conclusion can be divided into two groups. The first group holds that the surrounding structures, courts, and gates were altered over time while the tripartite temple building itself remained unmodified. See, for example, Prestel 1902; Busink 1970, 664–680; Rupprecht 1972, 1977. The difficulties are summed up in Hentschel’s (1981, 16) note: “Die Beschreibung des Tempels in 1 Kön 6 stellt nicht nur die schlichten Leser, sondern auch die Fachexegeten immer wieder vor Probleme.” 23 Gray 1976, 158. 24 Meyers 1992, 6:362. 25 Roberts 2009, 5:500. 21 22

1.3 Precursors of This Project

7

“[According to] the Deuteronomistic historian (Dtr), the basic Temple in Jerusalem remained untouched throughout most of its history, even as the temenos around [it] changed,” wrote Z. Zevit, who accepted the biblical account as accurate in this respect.26 Scholars in the second group conclude that the basic layout of the temple itself was also changed. L. Waterman proposed that Solomon’s temple was originally nothing more than a royal chapel.27 Building on this idea, A. Lemaire concluded that the shift from a small private chapel to a national temple required significant changes in the architecture of the temple.28 Conclusions as to whether and how the temple changed depend above all on the analysis of both biblical texts and extrabiblical documents. Analyzing the Amarna correspondence, N. Na’aman concluded that Solomon built the temple, but on “a much smaller scale than the one built in the late monarchical period.”29 No matter how much weight is given to comparative evidence derived from extrabiblical documents, any study of changes in the architecture of the Jerusalem temple ultimately has to deal with the biblical texts, since each temple had its own history and the changes one temple underwent were not replicated in other temples. Furthermore, the biblical traditions themselves were subject to renovation and remodeling. V. A. Hurowitz captures one of the distinctive challenges of working with the biblical descriptions of the temple: “The biblical accounts as they appear before us are products of literary growth, and may telescope reflections of the Temple as it appeared at various stages of its existence.”30 In other words, research on the biblical texts presupposes that they are the result of numerous redactional interventions.31 Even though this premise is generally shared, there is no consensus as to which verses are original and which are later additions.32 Opinions on whether and how to use the biblical text also vary. On the one hand, S. Yeivin’s comparison of the accounts in Chronicles and Kings led him to conclude that Chronicles reflects the architecture of the late preexilic temple, whereas Kings preserves an account of the architecture of the early preexilic temple.33 On the other hand, J. Van Seters concluded that the building account is basically a composition of the Deuteronomistic Historian to which a number of later additions have been made. The description of the temple and its furnishings in 1 Kings 6–7 is not a historical witness to the temple in Solomon’s time but is rather an attempt to establish an ideological continuity between the beginning of the monarchy under David and Solomon and its end, and to suggest the possibility of restoration and a new beginning, perhaps under a restored Davidic ruler.34 Zevit 2002, 80. Waterman 1943, 284. 28 Lemaire 2011, 199. 29 Na’aman 2003, 23. 30 Hurowitz 1992, 17. 31 See, for example, Zwickel 1999, 72. 32 Gray 1976, 168, 171; Würthwein 1977, 59–61; Buis 1997, 66; Zwickel 1999, 72. 33 Yeivin 1964, 331–332. 34 Van Seters 1997, 57. 26 27

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

Let me summarize some of the broader scholarly conclusions that are pertinent to this study. The problems raised by the biblical accounts rule out the possibility that the Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 6–8 was written by one author, independently of whether we would date the work to the preexilic or postexilic period. The final touches betray the pen of redactors working after the exile. Therefore the point of departure for my investigation is that 1 Kgs 6–8 is a multilayered composition. It can hardly be dated to one historical period, but incorporates a mixture of notes and additions coming from different authors and schools.

1.4 The Design of This Project A close examination of the “traditional” reconstructions of the preexilic temple of Jerusalem shows that most of them start with the premise that the temple did not change, or that any changes were insignificant: because the temple was a sacred structure, once it was built it remained substantially untouched for four centuries. Contrariwise, scholars have no problem accepting that Herod the Great did not adhere to the ancient layout of the temple but boldly updated the temple building, its courtyards, and its gates.35 Can we determine whether similar interventions in the architecture of the temple were undertaken by major preexilic kings such as Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah?36 If so, can we trace those changes and outline the phases of the development of the temple? To answer these questions, I have divided the body of this monograph into three parts (Chapters 2–4). Chapter 2 investigates evidence from the ancient Near East. This chapter will provide background on how temples in that region changed over time, which parts of a temple were most frequently altered, and how often and for what reasons temples had to be rebuilt. Since archaeological parallels are taken up in Chapters 3 and 4, this chapter will explore mainly textual evidence from Syria-Palestine and Mesopotamia. I will argue that ancient Near Eastern temples were often remodeled, torn down, and even rebuilt. This result leads us to our main question: What about the temple of Jerusalem? Did it remain untouched for four centuries? Chapter 3 is dedicated to the study of notes and comments in various parts of the Bible that can help us to tackle this problem. I focus on the Deuteronomistic accounts of the reigns of the kings of Judah in the book of Kings, as well as other books that describe the preexilic period, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel. By comparing the biblical accounts and incorporating the thorough studies of other scholars, I will argue that there is enough evidence in the Bible to prove that the preexilic temple of Jerusalem underwent some important changes.

35 36

Zwickel 1999, 43–46. Lackenbacher 1982, 73–81.

1.4 The Design of This Project

9

This conclusion leads to the final step of my investigation, and the most complicated one. Given that the temple was periodically renovated, what can we say about 1 Kgs 6–8, which attributes the construction of the temple in all its glory to Solomon? Thumbing through the commentaries on 1 Kings is sufficient to persuade even the most skeptical reader that the text is full of problems. The grammar is unclear, the syntax is often incomprehensible, and above all the textual witnesses disagree on the descriptions of the temple. Bearing in mind the complexity of this biblical text, not to mention the fact that over the last two thousand years no one has proposed a solution that explains all the problems of the text and yields a coherent picture of the temple at a particular moment in time, in Chapter 4 I approach 1 Kgs 6–8 from a diachronic point of view. The basic presupposition of this chapter is that since the temple building and its functions represented the most important institution in ancient Israel, it was only natural that the texts describing the temple underwent several redactions and were continuously glossed.37 At the end of both Chapters 3 and 4, I synthesize the results of each inquiry and outline the chronological development of the temple of Jerusalem according to the evidence considered in that chapter. In each case I propose a minimalist version based on the analysis of the extant textual witnesses, and then venture some suggestions for a more nuanced model. These conclusions must be tested against evidence recovered from archaeological excavation, once the results are available; at the same time, this study can reveal some nuances that only a text can preserve and no archaeologist can ever unearth.

37

Würthwein 1977, 57.

Chapter 2

Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East There is no need to argue that the rebuilding and reconstruction of temples was a normal practice in the ancient Near East.1 Some repairs were done regularly, but most of them took place only once the temple had become dilapidated or started falling apart. The practice of temple reconstruction was not limited to one period or one region. On the contrary, we have evidence that temples were reconstructed in all periods and regions: from the Ubaid period2 to the Roman period,3 and from Elam4 to Egypt,5 including Syria-Palestine in the Iron Age.6 The extent of temple reconstruction varied. It might be limited to refurbishing the temple decorations, or repairs could be restricted to the dilapidated parts of the temple.7 In more ambitious restorations, the builders might tear down the damaged walls of a temple in order to reach the foundations and then rebuild the walls according to the original pattern. In some cases the temple was enlarged8 or completely transformed.9 To maintain the temple building and to repair it when necessary became an imperative for rulers, relentlessly repeated in the inscriptions left by kings to remind their successors to take care of the shrines.10 If a king did not comply with this imperative, he jeopardized not only his own well-being but also that of the entire country, risking the anger of gods who might abandon their shrines and 1 A good example of such remodeling is provided by the changes traceable in six temples in Ṭabaqāt Faḥil, Pella (Bourke 2012, 194–195). 2 Schaudig 2010, 142. 3 Perry 2012. 4 Potts 2010, 49. 5 An interesting example of the development of temple architecture is the naos of Nekhthorheb from Bubastis. Several different stages of the rebuilding of the temple have been identified, and each level can be connected with a particular style of decoration (Spencer, Rosenow, and British Museum, 2006). For the phases of the temple in Karnak, see Blyth 2006. 6 Ottosson 1980; Elkowicz 2012; Kamlah and Michelau 2012. 7 Thus Adad-nirari I mentioned in his foundation inscription that he rebuilt a gate that had become dilapidated and sagged and shook (RIMA 1 A.0.76.7:35–39). 8 Esarhaddon enlarged the Emashmash temple in Nineveh (RINAP 4 10:6–7). 9 Shamshi-Adad I claimed to have erected new doorframes that none of his predecessors had made, then built a ziggurat and gave the complex a new name (RIMA 1 A.0.73.1001 ii 1–20). 10 RIMA 1 A.0.78.11:58–73. Only exceptionally was someone else in charge of the reconstruction of the temple (Schaudig 2010, 143). The extant documents report that a queen or a priest could also take charge of the reconstruction of the temple (Fitzgerald 2010, 45–47).

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

11

withdraw their protection. For this reason, the constant renovation of temples was not simply a consequence of the perishability of building materials but also a matter of paying respect to the gods. In order to demonstrate their piety and their respect for the gods, kings boasted of the temples they had restored. They often insisted that they had not touched the foundations of the temple, but only restored its dilapidated walls and rebuilt the structure according to its original design.11 Behind this claim was the Mesopotamian conviction that when Enlil put the gods on the earth, he assigned them dwellings that were not to be altered. As H. Shaudig explains, A temple is not only a mere brickwork structure where the statue is stored but is actually identical with the original, primeval and transcendent, sometimes “heavenly” abode of the deity after its inauguration. Thus, the shrine Eabzu is the counterpart of Enki’s dwelling in the subterranean ocean. The temple Ebabbar, a human-made building that exists twice on earth in the cities of Sippar and Larsa, is the counterpart of the heavenly dwelling of the sun-god Šamaš, and the shrine Esagil in Babylon is the representation and successor of the temple built there originally by the gods for Marduk.12

In sum, the need to purify and restore a dilapidated temple that no longer provided a dignified abode for a god was one of the main reasons why temples were reconstructed according to their original design. In the Mesopotamian world­view, to repair a dilapidated temple while maintaining its original design was a project distinct from changing the layout of the temple itself.13 Royal inscriptions and archaeological evidence, however, prove that several ambitious kings not only restored temples that had fallen into disrepair, they also transformed the temples by altering their original layout.14 Such a substantial transformation of a temple had to be adequately justified. Mesopotamian scribes were often quick to record that an architectural intervention was a response to a divine request.15 In other words, the decision to tear down an old temple and rebuild or replace it was not a royal caprice but the will of the deity, of which the king was a mere executor. By presenting a representative sample of inscriptions that refer to temple reconstruction, the following paragraphs will illustrate some of the changes that were introduced during the restoration of ancient temples.16

Schaudig 2010, 147, 149. Schaudig 2010, 141. 13 For a study of terminology used to distinguish between temple renovations and reconfigurations, see Lackenbacher 1982, 94–101. 14 Adad-nirari II mentioned that while he was restoring the temple of Gula, he greatly enlarged it beyond its previous extent (RIMA 2 A.0.99.2:130). 15 See, for example, BIWA 140–141. 16 A selection of archaeological parallels will be discussed in Chapter 4. 11

12

12

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

2.1 Inscriptions from the West The first set of examples comes from the Syria-Palestine region.17 Inscriptions from this region often mention that temples were built, destroyed, and rebuilt. For our purposes, one of the most important inscriptions is an Akkadian building report from Ugarit (RS 94.2953). In this tablet the god Ea commanded the king to insert a window in his temple as the condition for his return to the temple. Lines 3–13 read: Ea, the great lord, appeared at my side: “Take a spade and an axe of rage, make a window above the foundation of stone; my plan, in length and width!” As for me I paid attention to the words of Ea, my lord, the great king. I took a spade and an axe of rage, I made a window above. Its heavy foundations made of stone I set free. He came back and I had completed it all.18

The god Ea in an apparition commanded the king to modify an old temple: he should place a window or window opening (ap-ta19) above the foundation stone of the Baal temple (cf. the windows in the temple of Jerusalem, 1 Kgs 6:4). The spade and axe most likely had a ritual rather than utilitarian function.20 The tablet also contains a formula indicating the completion of the temple: “I had completed it all” (cf. 1 Kgs 6:9, 14). Line 14, which follows the completion formula, is rather difficult to interpret: a-na-ku ku-ma-a-re ú-ma-ši-ir-ma “As for me, I again set free the accumulation.” The “accumulation” could have been something outside of the temple such as a wall, a ramp, or a staircase.21 In sum, tablet RS 94.2953 speaks about a later intervention in the Baal temple. The description has a command-fulfillment structure. The modification of the temple was carried out according to the specific command of the god Ea, using the requested instruments. In practice, it meant making a window opening in a wall of the existing temple. Another important document for understanding the reconstruction of temples in the Syria-Palestine region is the Phoenician inscription of King Yahimilik (tenth century BCE) from the Persian period (dated to the fifth century BCE).22 Lines 2–8 read: And I made for my Lady, Mistress of Byblos, this altar of bronze, which is in this [court]yard, and this opening of gold, which (is) opposite to this opening of mine, and this winged (disk) of gold, which (is) in the midst of the stone, which (is) above this opening of gold, and this portico and its columns and the capitals which (are) upon them, and its roof.23 For the Hittite period, see COS 2, no. 2.20B. For the text and a French translation, see Arnaud 2007, 201. The English translation is taken from Pitard 2010, 102. 19 CAD A/2, 197. 20 Pitard 2010, 104. 21 Arnaud 2007, 202. 22 Moscati 1988, 108, 304–305. 23 For an analysis, translation, and bibliography see CIS I, no. 1; KAI no. 10, 2:11–15; SSI 3, 94–99; COS 2, no. 32. 17 18

2.1 Inscriptions from the West

13

The text describes some changes introduced into the furnishing and decoration of the temple. First, line 4 mentions that the king introduced into the temple court a new altar made out of bronze (cf. 2 Kgs 16:14). Second, lines 4 and 5 mention two openings, most likely gates or doors. One is called “the golden gate” and the other, “my [i.e., the king’s] gate.” From the inscription it is possible to deduce that the king’s gate was built before the inscription had been written, while the golden gate was erected later, together with the altar. J. C. L. Gibson suggested that the king’s gate led to the palace court and that the golden gate, which was in front of it, led into the court of the shrine (cf. 2 Kgs 15:35).24 Third, the king added a new piece of decoration – “a winged (disk) of gold” – above the golden gate (cf. 2 Kgs 18:16; see §4.7). Finally, the king did not hesitate to add new architectural features to the temple. He made an ‫“ ערפת‬colonnade/portico” (cf. 1 Kgs 6:3), its pillars with capitals (cf. 1 Kgs 7:15–22), and its roof (cf. 1 Kgs 6:9). The portico might have been a pillared and roofed extension of the gate leading to the court or to the shrine. In sum, this inscription is a good example of several important changes that King Yahimilik introduced into the temple.25 His changes significantly affected the structure of the temple (new gates and a portico), its decoration (winged disk and objects overlaid by gold), and its cult furnishings (a new altar). To this list, we can add several other inscriptions mentioning temple building in general.26 Another inscription associated with Yahimilik states that he built a house (i.e., a temple or palace).27 Similarly, the inscription of Panamuwa speaks about a house built for the gods: “I am Panamuwa […] a hou[se for the go]ds of this city. And [I built] it. And I caused the gods to dwell in it. And during my reign I allotted [the gods] a resting place. [And] they gave to me a seed of the bosom.”28 A similar inscription has been preserved in Philistia stating that Padi, king of Ekron, built a house for PTGYH.29 W. Pitard, analyzing this and other Semitic inscriptions, showed that they bear traces of a schema proposed by V. A. Hurowitz and concluded that “the appearance of fragments of Hurowitz’ schema in the inscriptions provides evidence that the motifs found at Ugarit and in Exodus and 1 Kings were probably extant as well in the lost literatures of the other West Semitic states of the Levant.”30 To summarize, the inscriptions coming from the west indicate that the architectural features most frequently altered were gates, porticos, pillars and their SSI 3, 97. The changes probably followed an Egyptian pattern (Moscati 1988, 144). 26 Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997. See also COS 2, no. 36. 27 COS 2, no. 29. 28 COS 2, no. 36, lines 19–20a. For similar notes on temple building, see also COS 2, no. 57, mentioning the list of the temples built or rebuilt by Eshmunazor II, and COS 2, no. 35, col. B, lines 9–12, mentioning that Zakkur, king of Hamath, built several temples and shrines. 29 Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997. 30 Pitard 2010, 106. 24 25

14

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

capitals, windows, decorations, and roofs. This is not surprising, since these parts of a temple can easily be changed.

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions More textual evidence comes from Mesopotamia. An illustrative example, preserved on stone tablets, describes restoration work on the Assyrian Ishtar temple at Assur (RIMA 1 A.0.76.15). Lines 5–32 mention that Ilu-shumma built the temple and that it was restored by Sargon (I), Puzur-Ashur, and finally by Adad-nirari I. This and other inscriptions suggest that repairing or rebuilding temples was a normal practice in ancient Mesopotamia. The main reason for the reconstruction of Mesopotamian temples was their dilapidation. Because Assyrian and Babylonian temples31 were usually made of sun-dried bricks, the lower parts of “the buildings were damaged by salt, which was soaked up from the soil with groundwater into the socles of the walls. There, the salt crystallized and destroyed the brickwork, thus causing the walls to collapse.”32 As a result, Babylonian temples often had to be rebuilt.33 J. Novotny, studying the temples in Assyria, similarly concluded that among the eleven possible reasons for rebuilding a temple, those most frequently cited amounted to natural decay due to the ravages of time; temples simply became dilapidated over the years. Besides the perishability of the material used for the construction of the Mesopotamian temples, damage from flood, earthquake, or fire and the sacking or destruction of a temple by an enemy were other reasons why temples were reconstructed (cf. §3.3 and §3.4).34 Depending on the cause and the extent of the damage, the length of time between successive reconstructions varied.35 Natural disasters and looting usually shortened the period between reconstructions. Let me present a few examples. Tukulti-ninurta I claimed that the temple of Ishtar in Assur had not been rebuilt for 720 years; when it became old and dilapidated, he reconstructed it (RIMA 1 A.0.78.11:26–28). Tiglath-pileser I mentioned that the temple of the gods Anu and Adad became dilapidated after 641 years. Ashur-dan I started the For the dilapidation of Babylonian temples, see, for example, RIMB 2 B.6.21.1:3–6; CUSAS 17 76, 86; RIMA 1 A.0.39.1:88–98. 32 Schaudig 2010, 143. 33 For examples from the Neo-Babylonian period, see Schaudig 2010, 143–144. 34 Other reasons for restoration or reconstruction were the demolition of a temple by a previous ruler, or simply the need to replace an aged structure or one too small for current needs (Novotny 2010, 110–114). For a study of the various causes of damage to temples, see Lackenbacher 1982, 57–81. 35 H. Lewy (CAH I/2, 740–742) advanced the theory that periodic reconstructions were carried out at regular intervals of 350 years. However, according to the royal inscriptions the time between reconstructions varied. 31

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions

15

restoration process and Tiglath-pileser I finally completed it sixty years later (RIMA 2 A.0.87.1 vii 60–70). Adad-nirari II restored the temple of the goddess Gula that Tukulti-ninurta I had built, i.e., about three hundred years after its construction (RIMA 2 A.0.99.2). Tukulti-ninurta I claimed that he restored the ruined temple of the goddess Dinitu, which had not been repaired since the reign of Adad-nirari I, i.e., for about one hundred years (RIMA 1 A.0.78.14:9–27). The Emashmash temple was restored by two successive kings, Shalmaneser I (ca. 1273–1244 BCE) and his son Tukulti-ninurta I (ca. 1243–1207 BCE); this means that the temple was restored twice in fifty years. These examples suggest that the interval between episodes of temple construction or renovation ranged from several decades up to several centuries. Since a number of scholars have already gathered the material regarding temple rebuilding from the Mesopotamian documents, I base the following discussion on their mammoth work.36 The first part (§2.2.1) will take a diachronic approach, examining the reconstruction of the Ishtar temple over the centuries; the second part (§2.2.2) will take a synchronic approach, studying Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, in particular the reconstruction of Esharra and Esagil. The third part (§2.2.3) will deal with some Neo-Assyrian letters. 2.2.1 The Emashmash Temple in Nineveh According to the biblical accounts, the temple of Jerusalem was not a secondary shrine but rather a national sanctuary in the capital of the Judean kingdom and the destination of pilgrims. In order to demonstrate the plausibility of renovation and remodeling at the central Judean shrine, this section illustrates that temples in important cult centers underwent regular reconstruction. The temple of Ishtar in Nineveh is a good example of the introduction of changes at a national shrine.37 Emashmash (é.maš.maš), a temple of Ishtar-Ninlil in Nineveh, was built by Manishtushu, king of Akkad (2269/2306‒2255/2291 BCE).38 It was renovated by Shamshi-Adad I (ca. 1813‒1791 BCE), i.e., after about four hundred years.39 Shamshi-Adad I’s renovation was not limited to the repair of a temple that had grown dilapidated after a long period, but rather encompassed a substantial reconstruction. He claims to have erected new doorframes/doorjambs in the Emashmash temple (sí-ip-pí-šu40). However, the most important of Shamshi-Adad I’s 36 For the examples see Hurowitz 1992; Boda and Novotny 2010; Kamlah and Michelau 2012. 37 George 1993, 121. 38 For the plans, see Gut 1995, 18. 39 No structural remains have been found from the period between Man-ishtushu and Shamshi-Adad I; however, it is possible that the temple was repaired from time to time (see Reade 2005, 361). The inscription mentions that the reconstruction took place after 7 dāru (RIMA 1 A.0.39.2 i18). The interval between Man-ishtushu and Shamshi-Adad I was about half a millennium, but the 7 dāru could have a symbolic meaning as well (Reade 2005, 362). 40 CAD S, 301b.

16

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

changes to the temple was the addition of a ziggurat (RIMA 1 A.0.39.2 ii 14–20). This new complex also received a new name: “Her Treasure House.” Phase 7 of the temple is dated to Shamshi-Adad I’s period, and J. Reade showed that the architectural core of building activity in that phase was a platform whose length he estimated to be about 106 meters.41 The temple was then restored by Ashur-uballit I (ca. 1363–1328 BCE), i.e., after about five hundred years (RIMA 1 A.0.73.1001). There are no inscriptions recording work undertaken on the temple in the period between Shamshi-Adad I’s and Ashur-uballit I’s reconstructions. But the temple survived and Ishtar was venerated throughout the entire Middle Assyrian Period. J. Reade connected Ashur-uballit I’s repair of the temple with Phase 9.42 About fifty years later the temple was damaged by an earthquake and restored by Shalmaneser I (ca. 1273–1244 BCE). This reconstruction aimed at rebuilding the fallen and damaged parts of the temple (RIMA 1 A.0.77.17:6–9; 29). The king also introduced a new element into the decoration of the temple: wall pegs. This type of decoration had long been used in other temples. The pegs were found in Phase 10. A huge mud-brick structure was probably added in this period to stabilize the slope below the temple after the earthquake.43 The next king, Tukulti-ninurta I (ca. 1243–1207 BCE), after less than fifty years undertook only a minor restoration of the temple (RIMA 1 A.0.78.34), most likely regular maintenance work. About a half century later, during the reign of Ashur-dan I (ca. 1179–1133 BCE), the temple was once again affected by an earthquake. The Lion Gate, which had been damaged during the previous earthquake and restored by Shalmaneser I, was damaged once again; this time, its towers suffered most of the consequences. The king Ashur-resha-ishi I (ca. 1133–1115 BCE) restored it, about one hundred years after Tukulti-Ninurta I’s repairs (RIMA 1 A.0.86.1:8– 10). The king not only restored the damaged towers of the Lion Gate, he also made them much higher and decorated them with stone rosettes (Phase 12). Another reconstruction took place under Tiglath-pileser I (ca. 1115–1076 BCE), i.e., after about less than fifty years (RIMA 2 A.0.87.12:24ʹ–31ʹ). It has been reasonably suggested that this reconstruction aimed at a reinforcement of the northwestern frontage of the temple (tam-la-šu “its terrace, filling”; RIMA 2 A.0.87.12:28ʹ). The king also decorated the walls of the temple with hunting scenes and placed the obelisk found in Squares A and P in the temple or in its vicinity (Phase 13).44 Phase 15 is associated with Shamshi-Adad IV (ca. 1054–1050 BCE). His scribes recorded that the king accomplished a similar reconstruction of the tam-la-šu “terReade 2005, 363. Reade 2005, 369. 43 Reade 2005, 371–372. 44 Reade 2005, 373. 41 42

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions

17

race, filling” (RIMA 2 A.0.91.2:7). The king also claimed to have entirely rebuilt the bīt nāmeri “towers / watch houses of the temple” (RIMA 2 A.0.91.14–15). In the Neo-Assyrian period, i.e., about two hundred years after the last reconstruction and about a millennium after Shamshi-Adad I’s major reconstruction, Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) claimed to have restored the temple completely (RIMA 2 A.0.101.40:30–37). An inscription lists several aspects of Ashurnasirpal II’s reconstruction. First, he prepared the site: a-šar-šu ú-˹me˺-si dan-na-su ak-šu-ud “I demarcated its site and reached its foundation (pit).” In light of similar expressions,45 in particular those used to describe Ashurnasirpal II’s reconstruction of the temple of Ninurta in Calah (RIMA 2 A.0.101.31:11–16), this introduction could be interpreted to mean that the king tore down the old temple walls, dug down to the foundations of the temple, and laid them anew. Thus this reconstruction was much more than simple maintenance work. According to J. Reade’s study, Ashurnasirpal II’s temple (Phase 20) was superimposed on the remains of Shamshi-Adad I’s temple (Phase 7). The main layout was maintained, with a few changes on the northwest and southwest gates. Second, Ashurnasirpal II stated that after the temple had fallen into disrepair, he rebuilt it from the foundations to the crenellations (TA URU4-šu a-di gaba-dib-šu). The stereotyped expression ar-ṣip ú-šék-lil ú-si-im ú-šar-riḫ, lit. “I rebuilt (it), I completed (it), I adorned (it), I made (it) magnificent”46 (cf. also RIMA 2 A.0.101.57:3), points not only to a replica of the previous structure but also to changes in its decoration, as demonstrated by excavators. A mud-brick wall, about 2.5 m thick and 20 m long, dated to Phase 20 (Ashurnasirpal II’s period), survived in squares RST. Thompson and Hamilton excavated an alabaster wall panel decorated with carvings of persons bearing tribute. Other extant decorative elements belonging to this phase include glazed tiles and bricks and scenes of libations, warfare, and lion and bull hunting.47 Finally, Ashurnasirpal II claimed to have built a new throne for the goddess in the inner shrine (é-kù). Inscriptions and finds show that his successor Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) undertook only a minor intervention in the temple (RIMA 3 A.0.102.116), most likely at the southwest gate (Phase 21). Adad-nirari III (810–783 BCE) erected a stela in the temple recording the grant of a portion of land to Nergal-eresh, governor of the land Rasappa, but no substantial alterations of the temple architecture were noted (RIMA 3 A.0.104.9). Likewise, Sargon II (722‒705 BCE) did not make any important changes in the temple. Sennacherib (705‒681 BCE), on the other hand, claimed that he completely rebuilt the temple, according to E. Frahm’s reconstruction of a damaged inscription.48 However, the texts are poorly preserved and the physical evidence of his work on the temple is modest. In another damaged inscription, Esarhaddon (680‒669 BCE) mentioned that the For variants of this expression, see Novotny 2010, 115–118. Cf. CAD S/2, 38b: “I rebuilt it completely … I gave it a fittingly admirable appearance.” 47 Reade 2005, 375–378. 48 Frahm 1998, 109 r.4ʹ–10ʹ. 45 46

18

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

court of the Emashmash temple was too small, and Esarhaddon’s enlargement of the court is described in a reconstructed passage (RINAP 4 10:6–8; 1005:8ʹ). Moreover, Esarhaddon improved the walls and the decoration of the temple (RINAP 4 54 r.5–7). Ashurbanipal (669‒627 BCE) claimed that he carried out work on Ishtar’s bīt akītu, which was built by one of his predecessors – most likely Sargon II or Sennacherib. He also redecorated the temple and the bīt akītu (BIWA 268–269, 291). Several glazed bricks found in situ corroborate his claim.49 Finally the temple was destroyed in a conflagration at the end of the seventh century BCE, most likely in 612 BCE when Nineveh was conquered. There is no evidence that the ziggurat was demolished during the fall of Assyria.50 *** The Ishtar temple is a good example of how important cult centers in the ancient Near East were often rebuilt. At least sixteen kings worked on the temple over a period of almost two millennia. The major reasons for reconstruction work were the dilapidation of the temple and the damage caused by two earthquakes. The temple was rebuilt from the top to the bottom twice: once by Shamshi-Adad I (ca. 1813‒1791 BCE) and again by Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE). These two kings altered not only the walls and the decoration of the temple but also its layout. They built new platforms and changed the entrances into the temple, and Shamshi-Adad added the ziggurat. Other interventions were less extensive. Some kings rebuilt the damaged parts of the temple, in particular the Lion Gate, or restored fallen walls. Other kings redecorated the temple, introduced new material or new decorative elements (pegs), or reused known motifs. Finally, other rulers performed regular maintenance on the temple without making significant changes to its architecture or decoration. The repair and rebuilding of the Emashmash complex over many centuries was not exceptional; several Mesopotamian temples share a similar history.51 2.2.2 Esarhaddon’s Reconstruction of Cult Places Another great builder from the Neo-Assyrian period was Esarhaddon (680‒669 BCE).52 Records of his construction activities identify the materials used by builders and the specialists employed and provide as well a theological justification for the reconstruction of the temples. Esarhaddon presented himself as For an evaluation of the work these kings performed on the temple, see Reade 2005, 378–382. 50 Reade 2005, 385. 51 For a short history of the reconstruction of the Nabu and Ishtar temples in Assur, see Schmitt 2012, 5. 52 Examples of important Mesopotamian kings who were credited with reconstructing temple centers can be easily multiplied. Thus, for example, the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus were responsible for the reconstruction of several Babylonian temples (Schaudig 2010). 49

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions

19

“the one who (re)constructed the temple of the god Ashur, (re)built Esagil and Babylon, (and) restored the gods and goddess(es) who (live) in it; the one who returned the plundered gods of the lands from the city Assur to their (proper) place and let (them) dwell in security” (RINAP 4 1 ii 12). These few lines show that Esarhaddon was proud of rebuilding two main cult centers: Esharra (the temple of Ashur) in Assur, and Esagil (the temple of Marduk) in Babylon. The reconstruction of Esharra in Assur Among the major reconstruction projects undertaken by the kings of Assyria, Esarhaddon claimed to have rebuilt the temple complex Esharra (é.šár.ra “House of the Universe”) dedicated to the god Ashur in the city of Assur.53 This temple underwent a series of reconstructions.54 For our purposes, it is important to observe how Esarhaddon’s scribes presented the reconstruction of this temple complex.55 According to the inscriptions (RINAP 4 57 iii 30–34; 58 iii 8–iv 4), the last renovation of the temple had occurred 580 years earlier, during the reign of Adad-nirari I (ca. 1305‒1274 BCE).56 After receiving divine confirmation of his plans (RINAP 4 57 iii 42‒iv 6), Esarhaddon tore down the ancient temple. The new foundations were made out of limestone (NA4-pi-li) and strong “mountain stone” (NA4 KUR-i dan-ni) (RINAP 4 57 v 10–11). From the expression it-ti ki-ṣir KUR-i ar-ti “I set them on the bedrock” (RINAP 4 57 v 12–1357), it can be deduced that he removed the old foundations before replacing them with new ones (RINAP 4 58 iv 5–vi 6). The king meantime gathered the brickmasters, who spent an entire year producing bricks using molds of ivory, boxwood, ebony, musukkannu-wood, cedar, and cypress (RINAP 4 57 iv 7–v 2). Then he constructed the brick walls, roofed the temple with cedar and cypress beams, fastened bands of gold on doors of cypress, and installed new doors in the gates of the temple (RINAP 4 57 vi 1–14; 60:22ʹ). Furthermore, he made the furnishings required for the temple service (RINAP 4 57 vi 24–25). Finally, he overlaid the inside of the cella of Ashur with gold and covered the outside of the cella with plaster. Then he placed inside the cella genii, monsters, and other statues, including his own. He cast two bison facing each other to support crossbeams, as well as monsters that

George 1993, 145. Cancik-Kirschbaum 2006, 212–216. 55 For the factual, rhetorical, and religious content of the account of the rebuilding of the Ashur temple, see Galter 2004, 118–135. 56 This claim must be reviewed in light of archaeological and textual evidence showing that besides Esarhaddon, his predecessor Sennacherib was also responsible for a reconstruction of the temple, and that Ashurbanipal too took credit for completing the work and returning the god to his shrine (Haller and Andrae 1955, 52–73; van Driel 1969, 21–29; Huxley 2000; Eder 2004, 194–209). 57 RINAP 4 60:20ʹ reads ki-ma ki-ṣir KUR-i ar-ti “(making it) like bedrock.” An alternative translation would be, “I set (them) as the bedrock.” 53 54

20

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

he placed at the Royal Gate and the Kamsu-Igigu Gate (RINAP 4 60:23ʹ–33ʹ). He also decorated other cellas and installed gods in them (RINAP 4 57 vi 28–34). The reconstruction of Esagil in Babylon Esarhaddon’s second and more ambitious construction project aimed to rebuild the Babylonian temples destroyed during the military campaign of his predecessor Sennacherib. Sennacherib’s invasion of Babylonia brought victory over the Babylonian rebels supported by Elam, but it also resulted in the destruction of several Babylonian cult centers (RINAP 3/1 1:36–62). According to G. Frame, Sennacherib probably did not destroy Babylon as thoroughly as he claimed, but in any case serious damage was done. His successor, King Esarhaddon, was credited with the reconstruction of several cult centers in Babylonia. The rebuilding of the city and of the temples was a lengthy process that was completed during the reign of Ashurbanipal.58 The restoration of the Babylonian temples is not mentioned in any Babylonian chronicles, because their compilers were more interested in the return of Marduk to Babylon. On the other hand, a great number of Neo-Assyrian inscriptions record Esarhaddon’s boasts about his restoration of the Babylonian temples.59 According to the inscriptions, Esarhaddon rebuilt the main temple in Babylon, Esagil, and its ziggurat Etemenanki (RINAP 4 105 vi 27–32), together with its cella dedicated to Enlil, Ehursaggalamma (RINAP 4 48:98–100). Moreover he reconstructed Eniggidrukalamasuma, the haru-temple of Nabu in Babylon (RINAP 4 113:20–27), the processional avenue (RINAP 4 119:4–10), and a well in the temple complex (RINAP 4 105 v 23–38).60 The inscriptions dedicate the most space to Esarhaddon’s rebuilding of Esagil (é.sag.íl “House Whose Top is High”), the main temple of Babylon, which was dedicated to Marduk. Esarhaddon mentions this project in more than eighty extant inscriptions. The large complex was composed of a main building occupying an area of 78 x 86 m and two outer courts measuring 90 x 116 m overall.61 The most illustrative example of the king’s claim to have rebuilt Esagil is Babylon Prism E: “I built anew (and) [co]mpleted Esagil, the palace of the gods, together 58 Esarhaddon’s restoration of the city of Babylon and its cult places was an attempt to reconcile the Babylonians to the Assyrians. Comparing the policy of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon toward the Babylonian cult center, it is possible to conclude that Sennacherib’s destruction was an exceptionally severe measure and Esarhaddon’s reconstruction was simply a return to Assyria’s normal policy (Frame 1992, 55–69). 59 RINAP 4 10:1; 17:5ʹ; 43:9; 44:1–17; 45 iv 6ʹ–12ʹ; 48:82–100; 54:28ʹ–r.47ʹ; 64:3; 74:5; 75:9; 77:5; 78:5; 79:5; 84:4; 85:4; 86:4; 93:3; 98 r.3; 113:18; 127:18ʹ–19ʹ; 128:8–17; 129:15; 130:9–16; 133:15–35; 134:6–15; 135:6–15; 136:2–17; 137:10–13, and possibly 138 and 139 (damaged); 1001 ii 5ʹ–11ʹ; 1002 ii 6–8. 60 Frame 1992, 68. 61 See Koldewey 1911; Wetzel and Weissbach 1938; Bergamini 1977; Oates 1988, 157; and George 1995, 1992, 1–141.

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions

21

with its shrines, from its foundations to its battlements. I made (it) greater than before, raised (it) up, glorified (it), (and) made (it) glisten like the stars (lit. “writing”) of the firmament. I filled (it) with splendor (making it) an object of wonder for all of the people” (RINAP 4 106 iii 39–53). Besides this general claim, the inscriptions mention numerous details. RINAP 4 48:100 reads e-ma mé-eḫ-ret a-ḫa-meš UŠ8-šú-un ad-du-u ú-kin SIG4-[su-un] “wherever I laid their foundation in front of each other, I established their brickwork.” Interpreted in light of RINAP 4 104 ii 41–49 and 105 v 1–15, this expression indicates that he inspected the foundations and laid down new foundations exactly over the previous ones in order to maintain the original square layout of the temple. Esarhaddon’s claim to have preserved the original pattern of the temple contradicts the previously mentioned inscription, in which he boasted of having enlarged the temple. Possibly his enlargement did not affect the layout of the heart of the temple, but rather the surrounding structures and courts. Once the foundations were secure, he erected walls of mud brick upon them. The bricks were made in special molds of ivory, ebony, boxwood, and musukkannu-wood (RINAP 4 48:96–97; 105 iv 25–30) and some were baked in a ritually pure kiln (RINAP 4 119:10). Finally, he roofed the temple with cedar wood and used various types of wood for fixing the bonds of the mud brick walls as well as for decorating the temple walls (RINAP 4 105 v 10–22). To complete the decoration of the temple, the king commissioned specialists (carpenters, jewelers, coppersmiths, seal cutters, and skilled craftsmen) who had been approved through queries addressed to Shamash and Adad (RINAP 4 48 r.80–81). They were provided with precious stones and gold for their work. As a result, the temple was refurbished and the gods Marduk, Zarpanitu, Tashmetu, and Amurru were newly ornamented. Esarhaddon also made a new throne and footstool for Marduk out of musukkannu-wood covered with red gold (RINAP 4 48:72–95; 51 iv 9). Finally, according to G. Frame’s reconstruction of the missing parts of the tablet, Esarhaddon rebuilt the gates and fastened them with bands of gold (RINAP 4 111 v 9ʹ–10ʹ). Then he made the utensils required for temple service out of gold and silver. The weight of a single utensil was fifty minas (RINAP 4 105 vi 3–10). To this list can be added a few inscribed bricks that Esarhaddon used in paving the processional way of Esagil (RINAP 4 119–123). When the work was complete the cult was fully reestablished with all its personnel, offerings, and income (RINAP 4 105 vi 11–27). Only after this purification of the temple were the gods reconciled, and the people who had been scattered in previous years were gathered once again (RINAP 4 106 iv 33–47). Other temples Besides the temples in Assur and Babylon, Esarhaddon claimed to have rebuilt temples in other parts of Babylonia. In Borsippa he refurbished Ezida, the temple of Nabu (RINAP 4 54 r.10–16), and the temple of the goddess Gula (RINAP 4

22

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

127:18ʹ–19ʹ). In Der he reconstructed the Edimgalkalama temple and made the god Great Anu enter into the city (RINAP 4 128:9; 129:19; 130:15; 133:20). In Nippur he rebuilt Ebaradurgara, the temple of Queen-of-Nippur (RINAP 4 128:15–16); Ekur, the temple of Enlil (RINAP 4 128:8; 129:15, 29–32; 130:11; 131:10–13); and the processional street (RINAP 4 131:14–15). In Uruk he rebuilt Eanna, the temple of Anu and Ishtar (RINAP 4 133:30–33; 137:10–13), including a ziggurat and the cellas Enirgalana and Ehiliana (RINAP 4 134:11–15; 135:11–15; 136:11–17). In Arbela he overlaid Egashankalama, temple of Ishtar, with silver and gold, expanded it, added bronze locks to the gates, and refurbished the bīt akītu with glazed bricks, timber, and cedar (RINAP 4 54 r.16–24; 77:8–11; 78:8–10; 93:4). In Bas he rebuilt the shrine Edurgina, the dwelling of the god Bel-sarbi (RINAP 4 1001 ii 5ʹ–11ʹ).62 Nabonidus even credited Esarhaddon (and Ashurbanipal) with being the first to restore the Eulmash, the temple of Ishtar of Akkad.63 In addition, Esarhaddon repaired several statues of gods and richly adorned them, or in some cases made them anew. Statues of gods that had been taken to Assyria were returned to Babylon,64 Der (ABC 1 iii 44–45), Larsa (Shamash), Sippar-Aruru, and Uruk. ABC 1 iv 17–18 mentions that Ishtar of Agade left Elam and entered Agade (ABC 14:21–22), where her statue was refurbished. Theological justification The royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon not only list the destroyed temples that he rebuilt, they also present a theological justification for the massive destruction and cite divine approval of the reconstruction of the Babylonian temples. Inscriptions explain the destruction of Babylon by listing the sins of the people that made Marduk angry (RINAP 4 104 i 18–ii 9; 111 i 1ʹ–13ʹ; 116:1ʹ–9ʹ). Other gods and goddesses who witnessed Marduk’s anger against Babylon and its temple, Esagil, became frightened, abandoned their cellas, and went up to heaven (RINAP 4 106 i 1–ii 3). Marduk’s anger materialized in natural disasters and in the submission of Babylon to Assyria (RINAP 4 104 ii 9–23). The pattern of divine wrath provides the theological framework for Esarhaddon’s interpretation of the destruction and conquest of Babylonia. This framework, a well-known feature of ancient Near Eastern historiography, is vividly described in the Erra epic.65 In Mesopotamian theology, expressions of divine wrath were closely connected with the gods’ temples. If gods disliked their temples, they could abandon them, their cities, their country, their people, and even their king. Once the protective gods abandoned their temples, According to tablet K 1354, the city whose god was Bel-sarbe was known as Shapazzu (George 1986, 32). 63 Frame 1992, 74. 64 An aborted attempt to restore the statue of Marduk to Esagil is described in SAA X 24. 65 Cagni 1969. For studies on divine wrath, see Bodi 1991; Zenger 1996; and Kratz and Spieckermann 2008. 62

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions

23

the people and the country would fall into the hands of evil divinities. The people experienced this abandonment in the form of enemy invasions and natural disasters that devastated the land and destroyed its cities, while the people themselves and their king were deported or killed. Such an unhappy situation naturally called for a savior capable of restoring justice and peace. Esarhaddon is thus presented in most inscriptions as the pious king chosen to appease the gods by restoring the temples and the daily cult, and consequently restoring order in the country. However, the decision to restore a temple was far from simple. Any construction activity in a temple was an extremely delicate operation since it required the king to interfere in the divine sphere. H. Schaudig formulated this problem as follows: “Temples as human-made holy places present a special problem for ancient thought: since they were built by humans, they had to be purified to make them acceptable for their deities and from then on they had to be continuously protected against human pollution and desecration.”66 Even though maintaining the temples in good shape was not only the king’s prerogative but also one of his main tasks,67 he could not presume to undertake this work simply on his own merit as a perfect and pious king. Any reconstruction had to be approved by the gods. Inscriptions RINAP 4 48, 104, 105, and 114‒116 dedicate much space to making it clear that the gods not only had to approve the general decision to restore a temple, they also confirmed every step of this operation, including the appointment of the specialists involved. *** This study of Esarhaddon’s inscriptions allows us to draw some conclusions pertinent to our larger discussion. Aspects of temple reconstruction: Esarhaddon’s inscriptions list various parts of the temple that were built anew or partially rebuilt during the reconstruction of Assyrian and Babylonian temples. First, it was necessary to clear out the dilapidated or damaged remains of the old temple. Only then were the new foundations laid down. The next stages were the construction of brick walls with crenellation, the roofing of the temple with wooden beams, the refurbishing of cellas, the fastening of the doors with metal bands68 and their installation, and the preparation of utensils.69 The final step in the reconstruction of a temple was the decoration of the statues and their solemn introduction into the cella. In sum, all parts of the temple could be modified or completely rebuilt. While the layout of a temple was rarely altered, its decorations, gates, and other features were changed more frequently. Specialists employed and materials used: The inscriptions list the groups of specialists who participated in the reconstruction of a temple, such as brickmasSchaudig 2010, 141. Only in a few cases are high dignitaries mentioned as the temple builders/rebuilders; see Fitzgerald 2010, 45–47. 68 See also RINAP 4 12:12–19 and Barnett, Curtis, and Tallis 2008. 69 See also RINAP 4 12:20. 66 67

24

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

ters, carpenters, jewelers, coppersmiths, seal engravers, skilled craftsmen, and scribes. Similarly, the inscriptions list various types of material required for the work, such as limestone, strong “mountain stone,” precious stones, plaster, mud, and glazed bricks; various types of wood, such as boxwood, ebony, musukkannu-wood, cedar, and cypress; various metals such as gold, silver, bronze, and copper; and other materials such as ivory and different types of cloth. This short list indicates that the reconstruction of a temple was an expensive enterprise, and therefore the extent of the work depended heavily on both the importance of the temple and the economic resources of the reigning king.70 Theological aspects: Any reconstruction of the temple was an infringement on the divine sphere and therefore had to be initiated or at least approved by the gods, usually through omens. Moreover, in order to undertake such an action the king himself had to be chosen and favored by the gods. Ideological aspects: Esarhaddon did not mention Sennacherib, who was evidently responsible for the major renovation of the Ashur temple;71 Ashurbanipal boasted that he completed the cella of Ashur even though most of the work was done by Esarhaddon. Self-praise was part of royal ideology, serving to legitimate the king. Hence the expressions “I have built” and “I have done” do not always mean that a given king did all the work. The king’s predecessors or successors could have initiated or completed the rebuilding of a given temple, contrary to what the king claimed in his inscriptions. 2.2.3 Neo-Assyrian Letters Whereas the inscriptions are often colored by royal rhetoric, the letters represent more down-to-earth reports on various matters, including the reconstruction of temples and other cult centers, even though the letters themselves are not completely devoid of ideological aspects.72 The letter SAA X 349 provides a good illustration of what it meant in practice to reconstruct a temple. Even though the name of the sender is not preserved, the attribution to the scribe Mar-Issar is certain based on the greeting formula.73 Mar-Issar belonged to the inner circle of scholars. The letter can be dated to September 27, 671 BCE, during the reign of Esarhaddon (cf. §2.2.2).74 The date is indirectly confirmed by a note in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions mentioning his restoration of the statues belonging to the temples of Uruk.75 Cf. also Lackenbacher 1982, 84–92. Galter 1984, 435–441. 72 See, for example, SAA I 54; 64; 132; 133; VII 175; VIII 247; X 21; 88; 98, 174; 349; XIII 2; 26; 138; 145; 161; 164; 166; 168. 73 Excavators unearthed twenty-four of his letters (SAA X 347‒370). 74 LAS II, 265. 75 For Esarhaddon’s reconstruction of temples in Babylonia see, for example, LAS II, 266; RINAP 4 1 ii 12–24; 54 r.124. 70 71

2.2 Mesopotamian Inscriptions

25

To the king, my lord: your servant [Mar-Issar]. Good health to the king, my lord! May Nabû and [Marduk] bless the king, my lord! May the great gods bestow long days, well-being and joy upon the king, my lord! (obv. 1–4) As to what the king, my lord, wrote to me: “Itti-Marduk-balaṭu of Uruk has written to me: ‘Gold has accumulated in the temples, and there is repair work to be done’ ” – formerly, before the king, my lord, went to [S]urmarrate, the k[ing, my lord, as]ked me in Calah: “What work [on the gods] is [i]ncomplete?” (obv. 5–11) I (then) informed the king, my lord, as follows: “[The decoration of N]anaya is incomplete. Furthermore, (while) the face and the hand[s of Uṣur]-amatsa have been overlaid with gold, the figure and [the feet] have not. She is [dr]essed with a la[mahuššû]-robe and equipped with a golden tiara. The two golden [drago]ns are ready and they stand right and left [upon] her [pedestal]. I have sent her from Assyria to Uruk. (obv. 12–18) Furthermore, the work [on Arka]yitu, Anunitu and Palil [of the temple of] Mummu: the carpenter’s and metalworker’s work is [fin]ished, (but) they have not been overlaid with gold. We have given them silver, (but) they are still to get gold from me. After we have finished the work on Uṣur-amatsa and on the temple of Mummu, and the temple is complete, then we shall make the decoration of Nanaya.” (obv. 19–26) Now there are 40 minas of gold available. (However), the prelate, the delegate and the temple scribe of Uruk are visiting the king, my lord; without their presence I have no authority to check the gold. When they return, I shall go to Uruk. If extra gold has come in, I shall check it in their presence. I shall also see what repair work there is and send a detailed report to the king, my lord, concerning the gold and the repair work about which the prelate Itti-Marduk-balaṭu wrote to the king, my lord: “Let them turn the gold over to me, and let me do as I please.” (obv. 27–rev. 10) Then the temple of Der: from the moment its foundations were laid, until now, the prelate and the officials of Der have been pushing it onto each other, and nobody has set about it. This year they have started to build, (but) one day they do the work, the next day they leave it. I have heard that the crown prince of Elam has become troublesome and sent mud-brick masons there. Der is situated on the border of another country. If it pleases the king, my lord, let a bodyguard and an Assyrian master-builder go and live there. Let them perform the work on the temple and [establish the name of the king, my lord,] forever. The king, my lord, should [not neglect] the guard of [the temple]. (rev. 11–29) And (finally), Mars has emerged from Scorpius and directed its course towards Sagittarius. The king, my lord, should know (this). (s. 1–2)

The content of SAA X 349 can be divided into four parts: 1. Greeting (obv. 1–4) 2. Report on statue decorations in Uruk (obv. 5–rev. 10) a. Fiscal issues: summary of the previous correspondence (obv. 5–11) i. Report on the decoration of Nanaya (obv. 12–18) ii. Report on the decoration of Arkayitu, Anunitu, and Palil of the temple of Mummu (obv. 19–26) b. Fiscal issues: checking gold (obv. 27–rev. 10) 3. Problems with the reconstruction of the temple in Der (rev. 11–29) 4. Astronomical remarks (s.1–2)

26

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

This division foregrounds three aspects important for our study: fiscal issues, the phases of statue decoration, and the importance of temple reconstruction for territorial control. Fiscal issues: A report on the progress of the decoration of statues (parts i and ii) is framed by remarks on financial matters (parts A and B). The prominence given to financial issues underlines that temple renovation, in this case the decoration of the statues, was an expensive operation and hardly conceivable without the king’s intervention. Part A mentions that the money has been gathered in the temple, and that the temple official Itti-Marduk-balatu has reported to Mar-Issar that the gold is available.76 After offering a brief summary of the completed work and the work that remains (parts i and ii), Mar-Issar mentions in part B that the money should be checked and given to the temple official Itti-Marduk-balatu. V. Hurowitz studied in detail the fiscal aspects of temple reconstruction described in this tablet. Mar-Issar, the sender of the letter, wrote that he had to wait for the return of the prelate and the temple scribe in order to check the gold (obv. 27–rev. 10). Hurowitz concluded that during Esarhaddon’s reign the king and the temple administrators jointly controlled the fiscal affairs of the temple (cf. §3.5.1).77 This letter, however, demonstrates that the money assigned for the reconstruction of the temple was under the strict control of the crown. The king received two reports on the progress of the work, the expenses, and the work yet to be done. One came from the temple official Itti-Marduk-balatu and the other from the royal official Mar-Issar. Besides these two officials, the letter mentions two others: the šatammu and the qēpu. The former was the chief temple administrator;78 the latter was a royal official who directly exercised control on behalf of the king, especially in problematic matters.79 Thus the temple money was controlled by a local temple official (Itti-Marduk-balatu) and the chief temple official (šatammu), and two independent royal officials, Mar-Issar and the qēpu official, but the activities of all four were supervised by the king. It is not to be ruled out that the šatammu and qēpu officials would report independently on the results of financial transactions, as they usually did, and thus the king would receive four independent reports on the financial affairs of the temple.80 Such close royal control of matters can also be observed, for example, in cases of national revolts and delicate military operations.81

The local sanctuaries were continuously receiving gold and silver “which official and private piety poured into [the] cash boxes”; cf. the similar account in 2 Kgs 12 (Oppenheim 1947, 116). 77 Hurowitz 1986, 291–294. For a general study on the relations between the finances of the temple and the crown, see Dandamayev 1979. 78 CAD Š/2, 185; LAS II, 265; Sack 1995, 1977. 79 Dubovský 2012. 80 Dubovský 2014, 275–276. 81 Dubovský 2006a, 141–152. 76

2.3 Conclusions

27

Phases of statue decoration: The central part of the letter describes the work in progress. Mar-Issar reported on the decoration of five statues. From his report, we can discern the phases of statue decoration. Mar-Issar claimed that the carpenter LÚ.NAGAR (naggāru) had finished the wooden work and the metalworker LÚ.KAB.SAR (kapšarru) had completed his work, involving metal or precious stones. Since the body of the statue was usually made of wood, the first work to be done was to repair the wooden structure of the statue. Next, the wooden form was overlaid with gold, in particular on the feet, hands, and face. The last step was the dressing of the statue (cf. RINAP 4 48:95). These are the typical phases of statue restoration, as shown by E. Matsushima, who collected several examples confirming that statues were regularly refurbished, regilded, redecorated with precious stones, and dressed in new clothes.82 Terminology and suzerainty: The report is particularly interesting for our topic since it speaks about the reconstruction of temples in general terms: ù bat-qu ša ṣa-ba-t[i! i-b]a-áš-ši (SAA X 349:7).83 This phrase parallels the Hebrew phrase ‫ת־ּב ֶדק ַה ַּביִת‬ ֶ ‫( יְ ַחּזְ קּו ֶא‬‎2 Kgs 12:7; cf. 22:5; Ezek 27:9, 27) and could refer to any type of repair work, not only the restoration of statues.84 Part 3 of the letter concerns the responsibility for the work, in particular the (re)construction of the temple in Der. The reconstruction was supervised by the chief temple official (šatammu) and the local officials (bēl piqitti), who were arguing among themselves. Due to the conflict, work had not advanced beyond the laying of foundations. Mar-Issar added an important note, reporting that the Elamite crown prince had taken advantage of this dispute and sent his own specialist in making bricks (urāsu). Reasoning that whoever rebuilt the temple could claim suzerainty over both the temple and the city, Mar-Issar encouraged the king to send his bodyguard and his LÚ.e-tin!-nu85 so that the temple would be reconstructed by the Assyrians and consequently the city would remain under Assyrian and not Elamite control.

2.3 Conclusions Examples illustrating the ways in which ancient Near Eastern temples were restored could easily be multiplied. From the cases presented above we can draw some conclusions: 1. It was normal practice in the ancient Near East to rebuild temples. The life expectancy of a temple ranged from a few centuries to a few decades. If a Matsushima 1993. For the varieties of clothing, see BBSt 36. An excellent translation of the phrase ù bat-qu ša ṣa-ba-t[i! i-b]a-áš-ši was offered by K. Deller (1962, 230): “und es gibt eine schadhafte Stelle zu reparieren.” 84 Greenfield 1958, 221. 85 The term belongs to the semantic field of construction work and could be translated as Baumeister (Deller and Parpola 1966, 67–70). 82 83

28

Chapter 2: Restoration of Temples in the Ancient Near East

temple held special importance for the king, it was repaired or reconstructed almost every century. 2. Just about every part of the temple was subject to modification. The decoration and the furnishings of the temple were changed most frequently. However, floor plans were also changed. 3. Temples were reconstructed for various reasons, such as dilapidation over time or damage caused by looting and natural disasters. Ultimately, however, temples were reconstructed at the behest of the gods, who had to approve any changes. 4. Temple construction and reconstruction was the task and the prerogative of the king. It was an expensive enterprise that required keeping strict control over finances, collecting appropriate building material, and hiring specialists. 5. Kings boasted of their role in the reconstruction of temples, even in those cases where the credit belonged to someone else. 6. Several technical expressions describing the restoration of temples in whole or in part were shared throughout the ancient Near East.

Chapter 3

Did the Preexilic Temple Change? In the previous chapter I gathered evidence illustrating the indisputable fact that ancient Near Eastern temples were regularly repaired and often even entirely rebuilt. W. Hurowitz summarized the situation thus: Over a century of discovery, decipherment and publication of monuments and documents from the “Lands of the Bible” shows that royal (and divine) building activities served as a prevalent and respected theme for the styluses and chisels of court and temple scribes from all over ancient West Asia. This is readily seen from the testimony of hundreds of building inscriptions, and from literary, poetic and mythic works originating in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Aram, Canaan, and even Israel.1

As demonstrated in the previous chapter, royal inscriptions exalted the Mesopotamian kings who dedicated themselves to the restoration of dilapidated sanctuaries. The perishability of the materials used to build the temples was one reason for their periodic reconstruction; another reason was the fabulous riches stored in the temples, which attracted the covetous. Even though the promise of these riches was often a myth, temples together with royal palaces were the richest buildings in the ancient Near Eastern world and housed precious objects and metals. Consequently, temples became a target of military campaigns and local warriors aiming to enrich themselves. The looting of temples (along with natural disasters) thus proves to be another source of damage that resulted in renovations. Other motivations for the reconstruction of temples included religious reforms, which were often enacted to justify the king’s political and building ambitions.2 Among the reform measures were changes in temple administration and priesthood that might require adjustments to the temple infrastructure.3 The frequent rebuilding of ancient Near Eastern temples motivated by these and other reasons urges us to answer some challenging questions: What about the temple in Jerusalem? Was it an exception? Did the Jerusalem temple change between the tenth and sixth century BCE? Did it evolve over the centuries, or did it remain unaltered? Hurowitz 1992, 18. Lackenbacher 1982, 84–92. Here we may also note that some construction projects were simply not well done. In order to justify his complete reconstruction of the royal palace in Nineveh, Sennacherib claimed that the construction had been carried out inexpertly (RINAP 3/1 15 v 54). 3 A good example would be a shift in the role of priests in ancient Israel (Zwickel 2010b, 411–426). 1 2

30

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

A positive answer to the question of whether the Jerusalem temple changed would require convincing evidence that it was partially or completely rebuilt. The most appropriate source for such data would be an archaeological stratigraphic analysis of the various layers of the Temple Mount. The precision of that kind of analysis, however, depends on the quantity of evidence left at the site, and in the case of heavily occupied sites, such as Jerusalem, constant occupation and rebuilding have partially obliterated earlier remains.4 Moreover, certain types of modifications of ancient buildings leave few or no traces in the archaeological record. Thus it is appropriate to complement archaeological evidence with extant texts. Since a complete stratigraphy of the Temple Mount is not currently available and will not be available for some time, the only tell to be excavated is the multilayer text of the Bible.5 Stray remarks and lengthy passages scattered through Kings and other parts of the Bible suggest that several Judean kings rebuilt or partially reconstructed the temple of Jerusalem. Some reconstructions and additions to the temple were considered theologically problematic, while others were highly praised. In this chapter I will list and briefly analyze various passages that directly or indirectly reveal the architectural history of the preexilic temple of Jerusalem.6 Based on this analysis of the biblical texts I will argue that several kings left their mark on the temple.7 If one can demonstrate that the temple was the object of construction activity between the tenth and sixth century BCE, then a second question naturally ensues: Did repairs and reconstructions of the temple affect the temple’s layout, structure, and decoration, or did they aim to preserve the temple just as it was originally designed?

3.1 Methodological Premises Over the last century, scholars have witnessed changing trends in the ascription of historical value to the Bible. In the wake of major works that reconstructed the history of ancient Israel mainly on the basis of the biblical texts,8 a wave of skepticism washed away the idyllic symbiosis between biblical scholarship and ancient Near Eastern studies. As a result, subsequent reconstructions of the history and religions of ancient Israel were based mainly on archaeological excavations and inscriptions.9 In recent decades, postmodern hermeneutics with their positive and negative sides are gradually becoming old-fashioned,10 and scholars struggle Hurowitz 2009, 17. The idea of excavating a text is borrowed from Schniedewind 2010, 244–249. 6 For a concise but comprehensive survey of biblical texts referring to the temple of Jerusalem, see Sweitzer 2011, 125–131. 7 Meyers 1992, 6:362. 8 See, for example, Bright 1960; Soggin 2002. 9 See, for example, Garbini 2008. 10 For the “post-postmodern” period, see Wilber 2000. 4 5

31

3.1 Methodological Premises

with the question of how to use the Bible for historical purposes. This question is highly pertinent to this study. How reliable is a reconstruction of the preexilic temple based mainly on the biblical texts? To present the status quo of the debate on the reliability of the biblical texts would require an entire volume (cf. Chapter 1). Thus I will base the following analyses on several important studies, and decisions about the reliability of individual biblical texts will be made in conjunction with the premises and methods listed below. The first methodological step was to compare extant textual versions and editions: Kings, the Greek manuscripts, and later traditions such as Chronicles. In several cases variant readings and differences between editions indicate that while later editors did not feel free to omit troublesome passages, they recognized the need to correct them or to add details in order to adapt them for a new audience. The best example may be Ahaz’s command to construct a new altar and grant free access to the temple (§3.5.2). I complement these conclusions with results from the long tradition of diachronic literary-historical studies. Even though there will never be a complete consensus regarding the dating of every single verse, some partial agreements can be noted. In some cases, further confirmation of conclusions based on the comparison of textual versions and editions and diachronic analysis can be achieved when diachronic and synchronic studies reach similar results. Another methodological step was to individuate secondary remarks on the temple in the biblical text that had little or no theological or ideological value.12 Remarks about details such as a paved floor or a chamber added to the temple courts refer to architectural elements that were not invested with ideological significance by the biblical writers, and thus the record of those elements is not shaped by the desire to convey a theological or political message. These remarks betray the state of the temple in a given period; however, it is not always the period that the text purports to describe. Most problematic are those passages that are blatantly laden with theological concerns and form the basis for the Deuteronomistic evaluation of the kings. For this reason we must be more cautious when evaluating references to the removal of the asherah or of altars, or the destruction of the high places. In evaluating these cases, studies on the distortion of history in ancient historiography are of great use. 11

Furay and Salevouris 1988; Woodman 1988; McKenzie and Römer 2000; Abusch and Beaulieu 2001; Malamat 2001; Stern and Mazar 2001; Dever and Gitin 2003; Kenan 2003; Schenker 2004, 2011, 2012; Banks 2006; Grabbe 2007; Williamson 2007; Eph’al, Tadmor, and Na’aman 2009; Pitcher 2009; Hengst 2010; Kraus et al. 2010; Becking and Grabbe 2011; Liverani 2011; Hobson 2012; Lemche 2013; Thompson 2013. 12 The value of the secondary notes referring to various architectural features should not be overlooked. An example is the term ‫( ְּבַׁש ְדמֹות ִק ְדרֹון‬2 Kgs 23:4). L. E. Stager (1982, 117–118) argued that this term originally referred to “agricultural terraces” and was later extended to the “architectural terraces” constructed to support the buildings. 11

32

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

In addition to these methodological approaches, establishing the literary function of a text in its context plays an important role. Hence I dedicate a good part of the analysis to synchronic study in order to understand the function of a given passage in the larger narrative. In some cases the results of this kind of analysis can be complemented by studies on the archaeological and literary context of a given phenomenon, such as W. Zwickel’s investigation of offerings and altars that show traces of burning. None of these criteria on its own constitutes a decisive argument for accepting or rejecting biblical descriptions of elements of temple architecture, but taken in combination they help to formulate a decision. The final conclusions of this chapter will be presented in two forms, representing maximalist and minimalist interpretations of the evidence.

3.2 Temple Repairs The chief architectural distinction between Syro-Palestinian temples and Mesopotamian temples was the choice of building material. Whereas in Mesopotamia builders relied on perishable mud bricks, in Palestine stone and wood were used in the construction of the temples. Even though wood is also a perishable building material, in general buildings made of stone and wood are more resistant to the ravages of time than those built of mud brick. However durable its building materials might have been, it is hard to imagine that the temple of Jerusalem would not have deteriorated over the course of four centuries. The goal of the following paragraphs is to investigate whether there is any textual support for such a claim. The biblical texts mention two occasions when the temple of Jerusalem was repaired because it had become dilapidated (2 Kgs 12:5–17; 22:3–10). Literary analysis of two narratives Several scholars have discussed the similarities between the accounts of Joash’s activity in 2 Kgs 12:5–17 and Josiah’s activity in 22:3–10 on the lexical and thematic level with the aim of establishing the dependence of one text on the other.13 Some scholars prefer 2 Kgs 12 as the original account,14 while others argue that 2 Kgs 12 is a later product based on Josiah’s reconstruction of the temple;15 N. Na’aman has concluded that both passages were written by the same author and were based on the original building inscription(s).16 Some observations emerging from synchronic analysis can inform this diachronic debate. In Kings, the biblical writers often used literary doublets to link, by means of a similar literary patGray 1970, 32, 582–583. Würthwein 1984, 357–358. 15 Levin 1990, 88. 16 Na’aman 1998, 337–340. 13 14

3.2 Temple Repairs

33

tern, two events dated to two different periods; examples include 1 Kgs 15:16–22 and 2 Kgs 16:5–9, 1 Kgs 12:21–24 and 2 Kgs 14:8–14, and 1 Kgs 20 and 2 Kgs 18–19. Since this is a normal narrative device in Kings, it should not be used to prove that one narrative copied the other. The very existence of linguistic and thematic similarities between 2 Kgs 12:5–17 and 22:3–10 proves only that the biblical writers employed a well-known literary device to create internal links between these two narratives.17 Beyond diachronic questions, most commentators focused their attention on the study of the fiscal changes introduced by Joash18 and the religious reform implemented by Josiah. From the narrative point of view, the repair of the temple provides the narrative background of each story. The account of 2 Kgs 12:5–17 suggests that both the royal house and the clergy were negligent in regard to the temple. Previous kings had made little effort to keep the temple in repair.19 The priests themselves allowed the temple to lie in disrepair20 and were more interested in their own financial welfare than in the preservation of the temple. King Joash, perceiving this negligence,21 resolved the problem by introducing a new model for financing temple repairs. In sum, the description of the repair of the temple in 2 Kgs 12 emphasizes three major points. First, it states that responsibility for the upkeep of the temple shifted from the priests to the king. Joash’s assumption of responsibility for the temple is not simply an illustration of the general ancient Near Eastern mentality, according to which it was the duty of a king to maintain temples. Rather, the biblical writers used this opportunity to link Joash to Solomon, the builder of the temple (for lexical similarities see below), and Josiah, who purged the temple of Manasseh’s desecrations.22 Second, the biblical text emphasizes the subject of temple finances by discussing it at the beginning of the narrative of Joash’s reign (vv. 5–17). As V. Hurowitz has demonstrated, the reform adopted by Joash, whereby the royal court and the temple personnel jointly oversaw the temple income, was part of a broader trend in the Neo-Assyrian empire (cf. §2.2.3, i.e., SAA X 349).23 On the other hand, this joint administration of temple funds was not practiced during the Second Temple period.24 Thus it is reasonable 17 Scholars give different names to this narrative device, such as double narratives, doublets, variants, duplicate stories, or repetitions (Nahkola 2001, 162–171). 18 Regular payments for the repair of the temple were introduced in the postexilic period; see Neh 10:33–34. 19 Cf. 2 Chr 24:7 and Provan 1997, 223. Similarly, 2 Chr 34:10–11 blames the dilapidation of the temple on the negligence of the Judean kings who preceded Josiah. 20 Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 140. 21 Commentators have criticized the priests for their wrongdoing and negligence. However, the attitude of the priests can be interpreted as a reflection of their incapability of initiating major repair work on the damaged temple; see Sweeney 2007, 351. 22 Dutcher-Walls 1996, 91–95, 98–101. 23 Hurowitz 1986. 24 Altmann 2014.

34

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

to conclude that 2 Kgs 12’s account of Joash’s fiscal reform reflects changes in temple administration during the preexilic period. Third, the biblical account describes the rules for the distribution of the temple income: which funds went to the priests, which funds were earmarked for temple repairs, and restrictions on the use of the funds (i.e., they could not be spent on temple utensils). The amount of space dedicated to these three issues within the narrative makes it clear that the main purpose of the narrator was not to describe the repair of the temple but rather to use it as an opportunity to describe a new financial reform. If this reform is placed in its historical context – that is, in the years after the Arameans lost control over Israel and Judah and both kingdoms tried to reestablish their identity (2 Kgs 11–14)25 – then it becomes clear that the court’s sudden interest in the maintenance of the temple was part of a larger program to increase national and religious prestige.26 An analysis of 2 Kgs 22–23 leads to similar results.27 In the final form of Kings, the narrative of Josiah’s reconstruction of the temple is in dialogue with 2 Kgs 12. In 2 Kgs 22:3–7 there is no dispute between the king and the priests. The reform introduced by Joash seems to have been effectively implemented.28 There is no dispute about the source of money and its distribution. Even the categories of workers employed for the repair are similar to those listed in 2 Kgs 12. Like Joash, the righteous king Josiah took care of the temple. However, in 2 Kgs 22:9 the repair of the temple recedes into the background and the focus of the narrative shifts to the scroll found in the temple. In the final form of the narrative, the repair of the temple serves only to set the scene for the discovery of the scroll and Josiah’s reform (§3.5.3.3). Just like the account of Joash’s temple repairs, the description of Josiah’s concern for the temple is used to introduce a major religious reform in the preexilic period.29 This examination of the final form of the biblical narratives has revealed a few points important for our study. First, the narratives deliberately connect three major moments in the history of the temple of Jerusalem: Solomon’s construction of the temple, on the one hand, and on the other hand the renovations undertaken by Joash and Josiah.30 Moreover, the texts underline the role of the king in the maintenance and reconstruction of the temple. By performing repairs on the temple, Joash and Josiah were fulfilling one of the duties of a just king. In the case Hasegawa 2012, 107–122. Sweeney 2007, 351–352. 27 Whereas in 2 Kgs 11 the religious reform precedes the repair of the temple, in 2 Kgs 22–23 the religious reform follows the temple repair (cf. §3.5.1). 28 Hentschel 1985, 55. 29 Repetitions and doublets often have various functions in the narrative; for the theological significance of doublets, see Briggs 2006, 100–112. 30 It is important to note that some other kings also commissioned work on the temple, such as Ahaz and Hezekiah, but only Joash’s and Josiah’s renovations are connected by means of narrative links with Solomon’s construction of the temple. 25 26

3.2 Temple Repairs

35

of Joash, since the priests had renounced their responsibility for the repair of the temple, 2 Kgs 12 justifies the king’s subsequent interventions in the finances and repair of the temple.31 Narrating the repair of the temple was thus a pretext to introduce and justify two major financial and religious reforms in Judah. The preceding literary analysis leads us to two conclusions. First, the biblical writers used descriptions of temple repairs as narrative introductions in the regnal accounts of both Joash and Josiah. Consequently, from a literary point of view, the temple repairs attributed to Joash and Josiah were not the main focus of the respective accounts, but rather provided a narrative context for the description of the reforms. This conclusion suggests that the narratives of Joash’s and Josiah’s temple maintenance were less influenced by theological concerns than were the descriptions of the two kings’ reforms. Second, the narratives of Joash’s and Josiah’s temple repairs are linked with the earlier narrative of Solomon’s construction of the temple. These narrative connections emphasize the importance of these events: in the eyes of the biblical writers, Joash’s and Josiah’s repairs were not run-of-the-mill instances of temple maintenance, but rather acts of reconstruction on a par with Solomon’s original construction. The extent of the repairs These conclusions bring us to the following question: What was the extent of Joash’s and Josiah’s activity? Did the kings simply repair the temple, or did they completely rebuild it? There were three ways of dealing with dilapidated temples in the ancient Near East:32 (1) the temple could be torn down and rebuilt according to a new plan; (2) the temple could be torn down and rebuilt according to its original specifications; or (3) the dilapidated parts of the temple alone could be repaired, or the interior of the temple could be remodeled without tearing down the walls.33 The biblical texts presented above (2 Kgs 12:5–17 and 22:3–10) do not specify whether the temple was substantially rebuilt (cases 1 and 2) or only refurbished (case 3). An investigation of the technical vocabulary used in these chapters, however, can illuminate this problem. A feature common to 2 Kgs 12:5–17 and 22:3–10 is the use of the technical term ‫ּב ֶדק‬. ֶ Since this word occurs only in Ezek 27:9, 27; 2 Kgs 12:5–17; 22:5 and as the verb in 2 Chr 34:10, it will require a short study in order to understand what this term meant. The Akkadian cognate of this term is the verb batāqu, For the different reasons for reconstructing or rebuilding a temple, see Novotny 2010. See, for example, Schaudig 2010, 141–150. 33 Several Mesopotamian inscriptions suggest that the layout of the temple was given by a god (RINAP 4 57:28ʹ–33ʹ) and therefore the king was not allowed to change it without special permission from the divinity (cf. §2.2.2). In some cases, even though the granting of permission is not recorded in the inscription, the layout was changed; for example, Nabonidus built a new temple in Sippar that did not follow the original layout without mentioning that a god had approved the change (Galter 2004, 123). 31 32

36

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

from which the adjective and noun batqu is derived. The verb batāqu means “to cut off” or to “to cut through, to pierce.”34 The adjective batqu, often substantivized, describes damaged parts of various objects, such as temples, palaces, foundations, and statues.35 When applied to the damaged parts of a building, it can describe elements that have fallen off (from the meaning “to cut off”) or the fissures and cracks in the building (from the meaning “to cut through”). The adjective occurs with two verbs, ṣabātu “to seize” and kaṣāru “to tie, to knot,” that are used to express the repair of a damaged part. In the case of the noun batqu/badqu, we can observe a shift in meaning. The noun does not refer to the damaged parts but rather to the act of repair itself, in connection with all kinds of objects such as temples, foundations, cloaks, doors, and jewelry. Hence the noun is translated “repair work.”36 Comparing the Hebrew term ‫ ֶּב ֶדק‬with the Akkadian terms, we can observe a similar shift in meaning. First, the noun ‫ ֶּב ֶדק‬can refer to a damaged part of the temple or of a boat (for example 2 Kgs 12:6; 22:5; Ezek 27:9, 27). The noun appears as the object of the verb ‫חזק‬, which would be an equivalent of the Akkadian verb ṣabātu. Studying the term ‫ ֶּב ֶדק‬in Ezek 27:9, 27, W. Zimmerli suggested that “in the case of the ship it means the coating with pitch and the supervision of the dowelling of the planks.”37 D. I. Block enlarged the meaning of the term to include performing “maintenance duties to keep the vessel seaworthy.”38 In Ezekiel the term refers to various types of operations ranging from coating and dowelling to replacing the damaged parts of ship, not excluding the addition of new structures to an old boat. However, it could not have signified a change in the layout of the boat. When applied to the temple, the term ‫ּב ֶדק‬, ֶ as in the case of its Assyrian cognate, could mean a fissure or a part that has fallen off. Used with the verb ‫חזק‬, it implies the repair of a damaged part of the temple. In conclusion, the operations described in the phrase ‫ת־ּב ֶדק ַה ַּביִת‬ ֶ ‫ יְ ַחּזְ קּו ֶא‬do not entail the complete rebuilding of the temple but rather a major repair aimed at fixing fissures, cracks, breaches, and parts that have fallen down. In 2 Kgs 12:8b, however, the phrase ּ‫י־ל ֶב ֶדק ַה ַּביִת ִּת ְּתנֻ הו‬ ְ ‫ ִּכ‬does not contain the verb ‫חזק‬. If the term ‫ ֶּב ֶדק‬is understood as “breach” in this verse,39 then we have to suppose an ellipsis of the verb ‫“ חזק‬to repair, fix.”40 In light of the development of the Akkadian cognate of ‫ּב ֶדק‬, ֶ I suggest that the term here bears the second meaning – “repair work” – and that the verse can be translated “hand it over for CAD B, 161–165, 166–168. In the Neo-Assyrian period the former meaning was preferred (AD 14b). 35 CAD B, 167b. 36 AEAD 12. The term badqu may be a loan word; see CAD B, 168. 37 Zimmerli 1983, 58. 38 Block 1997, 62. 39 KJV translates “but deliver it for the breaches of the house.” 40 As suggested by CJB: “you must hand it over to be used for repairing the damage in the house.” 34

37

3.2 Temple Repairs

the repair work of the house” (cf. NRSV, TNK). This conclusion suggests that there are two meanings of the term: (1( ‫“ ֶּב ֶדק‬damage” (2 Kgs 12:6, 7, 8a, 9, 13a; 22:5; Ezek 27:9, 27); and (2) “repair work” (2 Kgs 12:8b; cf. also the cognate verb in 2 Chr 34:10). In sum, biblical usage distinguishes two types of repairs: with the verb ‫חזק‬, the noun ‫ ֶּב ֶדק‬refers specifically to fixing breaches and restoring parts that have fallen down; without ‫ חזק‬it describes repair work in general. Besides these two expressions, 2 Kgs 12 and 22 contain only the verb ‫חזק‬ without ‫( ֶּב ֶדק‬‭2 Kgs 12:13b, 15; 22:6). Šanda’s suggestion to revocalize the Qal infinitive ‪‫ ְל ָחזְ ָקה‬in 2 Kgs 12:13 as a Piel infinitive with a suffix ‫ ְל ַחּזֵ קֹה‬is so far the best and the most frequently followed interpretation of this verse,42 and it is supported by important Greek manuscripts. The second problem in this verse is the conjunction ‫ ו‬in the phrase ‫ל־ה ַּביִת ְל ַחּזֵ קֹה‬ ַ ‫ּולכֹל ֲא ֶׁשר־יֵ ֵצא ַע‬. ְ Is it introducing an epexegetical note explaining what was already said before,43 or does it introduce a statement about a general reconstruction of the temple in which the fixing of damaged parts is only one type of repair work?44 The following study of this term prefers the latter explanation.45 The verb ‫ חזק‬in the Piel and Hiphil,46 employed as a technical term in building accounts, can describe a variety of construction activities, ranging from fixing a door of the temple that had not been used for a long time (2 Chr 29:3) to fortifying the city (2 Chr 11:12). The repeated use of this verb in Neh 3 (thirty-five times) is most instructive for our purpose. In this chapter, the verb is applied to the reconstruction of the gates and walls of Jerusalem. Comparing Neh 3:3, 33 and 3:6, 14, it can be concluded that the verbs ‫בנה‬ and ‫ חזק‬were understood as synonyms.47 Thus ‫ חזק‬in fact meant to build a gate anew, to roof it, and to set up its doors, locks, and bars, or to restore a piece of the fallen wall or other structures attached to the gate (Neh 3:13, 15, 25). This analysis shows that the expressions ‫ ְל ַחּזֵ ק ֶּב ֶדק ַה ָּביִת‬and ‫ת־ה ָּביִת‬ ַ ‫ ְל ַחּזֵ ק ֶא‬were not synonyms (cf., for example, 2 Kgs 12:13a; 22:6). Whereas the former meant the repair of a damaged part of the temple, without any alteration to the layout of the structure, the latter had a more general meaning: it included any kind of repair, including the complete rebuilding of an old and ruined structure. In other words, the first expression meant by and large the repair of fissures and parts that had fallen off, but the second expression could cover any kind of reconstruction, including the restructuring of an entire building. In sum, both technical terms – the 41

For the development of this term, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 137. Šanda 1912, 143–144. 43 Thus the IEP: “… cioè per tutte le spese necessarie ai restauri del tempio”; cf. also German translations. 44 NRSV: “… as well as for any outlay for repairs of the house”; cf. also TNK. 45 DCH 3:186. 46 Neh 3:19 is a good example of how the meanings of ‫ חזק‬in the Piel and Hiphil stems overlap. In Neh 3 the verb is used only in the Hiphil but in 3:19 it is used in the Piel to describe the same action. In 2 Kgs 12 and 22 the Piel is preferred, whereas Ezek 27 uses the Hiphil. 47 These two verbs are also used together, meaning “to build and to fortify” (2 Chr 26:9; 32:5; Neh 2:18). 41 42

38

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

noun ‫ ֶּב ֶדק‬without the verb ‫חזק‬, and the verb ‫ חזק‬without the noun ‫ – ֶּב ֶדק‬allow us to interpret the biblical account not only as a simple repair but also as an important construction project that could include changes in layout as well.48 Finally, the extent of the repairs can be inferred from the workers the kings employed and the type of work they performed. The following chart compares the terms used for workers and the collection of materials in 2 Kgs 12, 22, and other building accounts. Term Carpenters Builders

Laborers who worked on the House of the Lord Masons (lit. “wall-builders”)

2 Kgs 12

2 Kgs 22

‫ָח ָר ֵׁשי ָה ֵעץ‬

‫ָח ָר ִׁשים‬

‫ּבֹנִ ים‬

‫ּבֹנִ ים‬

Stonecutters

‫ח ְֹצ ֵבי ָה ֶא ֶבן‬

Procurement of timber and hewed stone

‫ִל ְקנֹות ֵע ִצים‬ ‫וְ ַא ְבנֵ י ַמ ְח ֵצב‬

1 Kgs 7:14; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 29:5; Ezra 3:7 All accounts (cf. 1 Kgs 5:32; 2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; Ezra 3:10, etc.) Exod 36:4; 1 Kgs 5:30; 9:23

‫ָהע ִֹׂשים ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬

‫ּג ְֹד ִרים‬

Other contexts

‫ּג ְֹד ִרים‬

Isa 58:12; Ezek 13:5, 22:30 1 Kgs 5:29; 1 Chr 22:2, 15; 2 Chr 2:1, 17; Ezra 3:7

‫ִל ְקנֹות ֵע ִצים‬ ‫וְ ַא ְבנֵ י ַמ ְח ֵצב‬

1 Kgs 5:15–32; 1 Chr 14:1; 2 Chr 2:8, 15; Neh 2:8

This table shows that outside of 2 Kgs 12 and 22, the Bible mentions similar mobilizations of specialized workers and accumulations of building material in the case of Solomon’s construction of the temple and the postexilic rebuilding of the ruined temple. This buttresses M. Cogan’s proposal that “the regular maintenance of the Temple building was the responsibility of the ‘workmen in charge of the Temple’; major repairs had to be contracted out to skilled workers, here the carpenters, builders, masons, and stonecutters.”49 Conclusion Let us now synthesize the results of the previous analyses. Since the authenticity of the recently discovered stele of Joash has been aggressively challenged and 48 The Chronicler adds a phrase: ּ‫ל־מ ְת ֻּכנְ ּתֹו וַ יְ ַא ְּמ ֻצהּו‬ ַ ‫ֹלהים ַע‬ ִ ‫ת־ּבית ָה ֱא‬ ֵ ‫“ וַ ּיַ ֲע ִמידּו ֶא‬he made stand the house of God to its measurement and strengthened it.” The expression ‫ל־מ ְת ֻּכנְ ּתֹו‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬can be translated “to its original measurement,” i.e., following the original layout of the temple (cf. LXX), or “to its proper state,” i.e., as it should be. 49 Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 139.

3.3 Natural Disasters

39

we have no archaeological evidence for the architectural phases of the temple building, we have to rely on the biblical sources.50 The biblical texts mention that the temple of Jerusalem was repaired twice, once by Joash (836–798 BCE) and once by Josiah (639–609 BCE). Both texts point out that the repair of the temple served as the occasion for major reforms. A study of the vocabulary used to describe the repairs showed that the terminology could refer to any kind of repair work, from fixing the temple doors to building the temple anew. However, the three different types of technical terms employed in the text point to the latter. Similar conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the artisans and craftsmen recruited for the work and the material used for the repairs. The specialized workers and the types of material described in 2 Kgs 12 and 22 are similar to the workers and materials assembled by Solomon when building the temple and by the exiles when rebuilding the destroyed temple. Finally, a comparison of the details of Joash’s and Josiah’s reconstruction activities shows that the biblical texts provided more details on Joash’s reconstruction of the temple, investing it with more significance than that of Josiah.

3.3 Natural Disasters The natural disasters most likely to damage public buildings in the ancient Near East were earthquakes and fires, and the two often occurred in conjunction; during warfare, too, buildings were put to the torch (cf. RINAP 4 57 iii 28–29). The biblical and extrabiblical texts do not allude to any conflagration that might have destroyed the temple area before the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. However, we have numerous pieces of evidence that the land of Israel, the temple area included, has always been vulnerable to earthquakes.51 The earthquakes of highest recorded magnitude were the one in 748 CE, reaching an estimated 7.3 on the Richter scale, and the one in Eilat in 1995, reaching 7.1. The frequent references to earthquakes in the Bible prove that people were familiar with this destructive element. According to seismological surveys, the rift valley of Jordan has been the epicenter of most earthquakes in Israel.52 A recent seismological study showed that the city of Jerusalem has also suffered the consequences of numerous earthquakes.53 D. H. K. Amiran’s list shows that in the last two millennia, seventy-one episodes of seismic activity of various magnitudes have been recorded in Jerusa-

50 For discussions of the inscription of Joash, see Achenbach 2003; Knauf 2003; Rosenfeld et al. 2009. 51 Smith 1907, 63–73; Amiran 1952, 50–52; Korjenkov and Mazor 2013, 52–56. 52 Arieh 2007. 53 Amiran, Arieh, and Turcotte 1994, 265–286.

40

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

lem.54 Fourteen of these episodes caused damage in the temple area.55 Whereas earthquakes in previous centuries are less well documented, the list of earthquakes recorded in the last two centuries is more precise and attests seismic activity almost every other year. From the period pertinent to our studies we can cite the destruction layers in Hazor56 dated to the first half of the eighth century BCE, which the excavators interpreted as the result of a heavy earthquake.57 The Bible mentions in Amos 1:1 and Zech 14:5 an earthquake dated to the reign of the Judean king Uzziah (785–733 BCE) and the Israelite king Jeroboam II (788–747 BCE). Amos 1:1 refers to it as “the earthquake.” The use of the definite article suggests that the biblical author alluded to an event firmly fixed in the audience’s memory. Several other passages in the book of Amos most likely refer to the disastrous event as well.58 Some other texts, such as Isa 2:10–22,59 may also refer to this earthquake. Some scholars reasonably connected the earthquake that damaged Hazor with that mentioned in Amos 1:1.60 Could this earthquake have affected the temple? Amos 9:1–4, 5–6 uses the language of earthquake to describe the destruction of a sanctuary, generally identified with Bethel.61 It has also been suggested that Isa 6:4, referring to the temple, could reflect this earthquake;62 however, it is impossible to prove this. A few centuries later the prophet Zechariah referred to it (14:5b, “as you fled from the earthquake in the days of King Uzziah of Judah”), and consequently the landslides identified in geological surveys on the northern slope of the Temple Mount have been attributed to the “Earthquake Fault of Zechariah”; however, this interpretation of Zech 14:4–10 has been contested.63 Josephus describes this earthquake vividly and specifies that it affected the temple of Jerusalem as well: In the meantime, a great earthquake shook the ground, and a rent was made in the temple, and the bright rays of the sun shone through it, and fell upon the king’s face, insomuch that the leprosy seized upon him immediately; and before the city, at a place called Eroge, half the mountain broke off from the rest on the west, and rolled itself four furlongs, and stood still at the east mountain, till the roads, as well as the king’s gardens, were spoiled by the obstruction. (Ant. 9.225) 54 In 64 BCE, 31 BCE and 30, 33, 48, 363, 419, 710, 749, 756, 808, 859, 1016, 1032, 1033, 1060, 1068, 1105, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1117, 1160, 1202, 1459, 1545, 1546, 1712, 1837, 1834, 1844, 1846, 1855, 1857, 1859, 1863, 1864, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1874, 1877, 1879, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1896, 1900, 1903, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1930, 1937, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1951, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1979, 1984, 1985, 1993, and 1994 CE. 55 In 64 BCE and 33, 363, 710, 749, 756, 808, 859, 1016, 1033, 1060, 1068, 1546, and 1834 CE. 56 Yadin et al. 1960, 24–37. 57 For other possible earthquakes, see Ambraseys 2005, 332–333. 58 Andersen and Freedman 1988, 193–195. 59 Milgrom 1964, 178–182. 60 Soggin 1970, 118. 61 Dell 2011, 4–8. 62 Harper 1905, 7. 63 Ambraseys 2005, 330–331.

3.4 Despoliation of the Temple

41

Conclusion D. H. K. Amiran’s survey showed that earthquakes of high magnitude, such as the earthquakes in 749, 1033, and 1546 CE, destroyed entire regions and caused hundreds of causalities, earning a mention in various literary documents, although these accounts often inflate the extent of the damages for ideological reasons.64 To conclude that the same earthquake that caused the destruction layers in Hazor also destroyed the temple of Jerusalem, and to connect it with the earthquake referred to in Zechariah and Josephus, would presuppose that the earthquake was of great magnitude and that its epicenter lay between Hazor and Jerusalem. Since Amos remembers it quite vividly, it makes sense to conclude that the earthquake he referred to was of great magnitude and, as was the case in fourteen recorded seismic events, it could very well have caused serious damage to the city of Jerusalem, including the temple area. It is also possible that Amos, Zechariah, and Josephus referred to different earthquakes. In the end, we do not have any direct evidence of an earthquake that would have damaged the temple area between the tenth and sixth century BCE. However, the frequent earthquakes that often damaged the buildings of the temple area, as well as the earthquake that damaged Hazor and the earthquakes mentioned in Amos 1:1 and Zech 14:5, are all pieces of evidence suggesting that it is extremely unlikely that over the course of four centuries, the city of Jerusalem, the temple area included, would not have suffered at least minimal damage from seismic activity.

3.4 Despoliation of the Temple Ancient Near Eastern temples served multiple purposes. For example, they were also used to store and protect all kinds of precious objects.65 In addition to the forces of nature that regularly damaged temples in the ancient Near East, desire to seize the wealth they housed was another factor responsible for immeasurable damage inflicted upon temples. In this respect, the temple of Jerusalem was no exception. The role of the temple of Jerusalem as the national treasury is expressed in Kings by the terms ‫ א ְֹצרֹות ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬and ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫א ְֹצרֹות ֵּבית ָה ֱא‬. The term ‫אֹוצר‬ ָ designated generally a room (HAHw 1, 25–26) in which any kind of material could have been stored (Prov 8:21). Used mainly in the plural (‫)א ְֹצרֹות‬, it designated a treasury, a specific place intended for the storage of the treasures of the temple or of the king (2 Kgs 20:13). The term also referred to the content of treasuries –

64 65

Ambraseys 2005, 335–336. Janssen 1979, 509–513.

42

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

treasure (Isa 30:6). Finally, the term was employed figuratively in poetry (Isa 33:6; 45:3; Mic 6:10).66 The treasures stored in the temple came from multiple sources, such as gifts, vows, and tribute (1 Kgs 15:15; 2 Kgs 12:4–16).67 Moreover, utensils made of precious metal were among the valuable objects stored in the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 7:48–50; 2 Kgs 25:14–15).68 Some of the spoils of war were also consecrated to God and stored in the temple (Josh 6:19, 24).69 Precious metals were not only stored in the temple but also used for its decoration (2 Kgs 18:16) or for the manufacture of cultic utensils (1 Kgs 7:40–50). Besides the precious objects, the temple housed the sacred weapons that had belonged to national heroes, such as David’s weapons (2 Kgs 11:10). In sum, the temple functioned as a sort of national reserve, storing and protecting national wealth.70 And since the king was ultimately responsible for the well-being of the temple, one of his tasks was to guarantee that wealth flowed to the temple and that it was adequately protected.71 The idea of the temple as a treasury was not limited to its function as a secure facility for the storage of national wealth. There was also a cosmological background that provided a theological justification for this concept of the temple. Like the temple storerooms on earth, God had storehouses in the heavens where natural elements such as rain, snow, and hail were held until they were released at God’s command (Deut 28:12; Jer 10:13; Ps 135:7; Job 38:22). Moreover, precious metals were not only stored in the temple, they were also used to decorate the temple just as they decorated God’s heavenly abode, as described in theophanies (Exod 24:9–11; cf. also Isa 6:1–2). This short introduction leads us to two questions pertinent to our study: (1) Was the treasury a separate building (a storehouse) attached to the temple, or was it part of the temple building (a storeroom)? (2) Did the treasury remain unaltered for four centuries? Storehouse or storeroom? In Kings the term ‫אֹוצר‬ ָ is always used in the plural construct form ‫א ְֹצרֹות ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬. In Second Temple texts, in particular Chronicles, the term ‫אֹוצר‬ ָ is used in both the

For the later use of this term and its other meanings, see de Hemmer Gudme 2013, 44–49. Similarly, Esarhaddon claimed that he decorated the temples of Sumer and Akkad with the gold, silver, and precious stones he plundered from Egypt and Kush (RINAP 4 54:28ʹ–29ʹ). 67 Mesopotamian temples also contained very richly decorated statues of gods (RINAP 4 48 r.82–86) that were often looted by invaders. 68 Hurowitz 1995, 151–161. 69 Along the same line, we can also interpret the term ‫“ ָק ְד ֵׁשי ָּדוִ ד‬holy things of David,” added by Solomon to the “treasures of the House of the Lord” (1 Kgs 7:51), as objects that David consecrated to God from the booty seized during his campaigns (cf. also 2 Kgs 12:19). 70 Stevens 2006, 136–166. 71 Levin 1990, 57. 66

43

3.4 Despoliation of the Temple

absolute and construct form. The expression ‫אֹוצר‬ ָ ‫ ֵּבית ָה‬occurs in Neh 10:39 and Mal 3:10, and a similar phrase appears in Dan 1:2: ‫ֹלהיו‬ ָ ‫אֹוצר ֱא‬ ַ ‫“ ֵּבית‬the house of the treasure of his God,” i.e., the treasure-house. These expressions are not found in Kings, which use only the technical expression ‫אֹוצרֹות ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬. ְ This phrase suggests that in Kings the treasury was part of the temple, and thus the expression should be translated as “the storerooms of the temple” and not “the storehouses.” On the other hand, the development of the terminology, particularly in postexilic texts, suggests a change of perspective. The postexilic texts do not use a frozen terminology as the book of Kings did. Nehemiah 13:11–13 indicates that in the Second Temple period the treasury was no longer the temple treasury, as in Kings, but that the ‫אֹוצרֹות‬ ָ had become separate storehouses in which tithes and agricultural products were stored. In consequence, whereas the treasury in Kings is always understood as a part of the temple building (a storeroom), the terms employed in the postexilic texts suggest that the temple treasuries were buildings – storehouses – attached to the temple complex. This leads us to the conclusion that the texts of Kings presuppose that the temple contained rooms or structures designed for the storage of precious objects, whereas in the postexilic period these storerooms became separate buildings within the temple complex. 72

Was the treasury altered? The precious objects stored in the temple functioned as a national treasury that could be used in negotiations with invaders. The Bible describes the removal of treasures from the temple in two ways: a Judean king might agree to surrender the temple wealth to an invader, or an invader could simply seize valuables from the temple. The temple wealth handed over to an invader: In the first case the temple wealth could be used to pay off an invader in order to preempt destruction and looting (Joash, 2 Kgs 12:18–19; Hezekiah, 2 Kgs 18:14–1673) or to bribe a foreign power to come to the aid of Judah when the kingdom was threatened with an invasion (Asa bribes Aram, 1 Kgs 15:17–2174; Ahaz bribes Assyria, 2 Kgs 16:5–9, 17–18).75 Hezekiah’s and Ahaz’s payments illustrate what it meant in practice to pay off an invader or to bribe a foreign power. Since Ahaz’s payment to Assyria will be studied in §3.5.2, I examine only Hezekiah’s payment at this point. Second 72 According to Neh 10:39 there were chambers in the treasure house where the tithes were stored. 73 To this list we may add also Jehoiakim’s payment to Pharaoh (2 Kgs 23:33–35). Even though the temple is not explicitly mentioned, it can be assumed that at least part of the tribute came from the temple treasury. 74 Elgavish 2000, 142–149. 75 The passages describing the despoliation of the temple and palace treasuries belong to the oldest strata in Kings; see Levin 1990, 55.

44

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

Kings 18:16 is generally considered to belong to a different source than that of the previous passage; perhaps it is a note appended from temple records.76 A. Šanda suggested that the second reference to Hezekiah in that verse originally named an earlier king of Judah.77 The final redactor attached this verse to 2 Kgs 18:13–15 to explain where the payment to Sennacherib came from. Despite some uncertainties, this verse has great importance for our topic. The syntax of the verse permits two different interpretations. First, Hezekiah stripped the gold/silver from the temple doors and doorposts that he had previously decorated and gave the precious metals to Sennacherib (cf. KJV, NRSV). In sum, to pay off invaders meant not only to hand over the precious objects stored in the temple but also to strip off and surrender precious materials used for the decoration of the temple.78 The second interpretation is more radical. Hezekiah cut down the gates and the doorposts of the temple, which he had previously decorated, and gave them to Sennacherib (cf. TNK).79 In this reading, paying off invaders meant dismantling the temple – in this case, removing the overlaid doors and doorposts.80 Both interpretations presuppose an ellipsis after the verb ‫ – ִצ ָּפה‬a Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 229. Šanda 1912, 249. G. H. Jones (1984, 566) suggested that this solution is not necessary, since Hezekiah renovated the temple in conjunction with his cultic reform, and the new decoration would have been part of the renovations. Jones’s explanation, however, turns out to be problematic, since it presupposes that the reform of Hezekiah described in 2 Kgs 18:4 affected the temple (cf. §3.5.3), an assumption that has no support in the biblical text. Despite the problems of Jones’s argument, other exegetes reject Šanda’s suggestion as well: “The gilded door-posts (the unique word is uncertain, VSS vary) represent Hezekiah’s very probable restoration and enrichment of the temple. Criticism of the statement that he was such a renovator has been expressed by critics, and his name has been replaced with that of Solomon (Klostermann), Azariah (Stade), Azariah or Joash (Šanda); but it is vain to essay such change of names” (Montgomery 1951, 485). 78 In 1 Kgs 15:15, the gold and silver are distinguished from the vessels. Thus the precious metals were not only in the form of cultic vessels. 79 “[C]onsidering Hezekiah’s interest in promoting the Israelite cult and his acknowledged wealth, it would certainly have been in character for this king to have renovated the Jerusalem sanctuary” (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 229). 80 The second interpretation is more plausible for the following reasons. First, the natural grammatical objects of the verb ‫ ִק ַּצץ‬are ‫ת־הא ְֹמנֹות‬ ָ ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫את־ּד ְלתֹות ֵה‬. ַ Since the first meaning of this verb is to “cut off, cut down” (cf. 2 Sam 4:12), then it is better to translate “Hezekiah cut off the doors of the hekal of the Lord and its doorposts.” Second, to interpret the verse in the sense “he stripped [the gold and the silver] from the gates and doorposts” presupposes that the direct object(s) of the verb ‫ – ִצ ָּפה‬gold and silver – are omitted. However, these omitted objects are too distant from the verb ‫ק ַּצץ‬. ִ Third, the second interpretation is supported by most Greek manuscripts. Even though from the syntactic point of view the second interpretation is more plausible, the interpretation also depends on the context. On the one hand, in the final redaction it is possible to connect v. 16 with v. 15 and to presuppose that the direct object of the verb ‫ִק ַּצץ‬ is mentioned in v. 15: ‫ה ֶּכ ֶסף‬. ַ On the other hand, since v. 16 comes from a different source, the original meaning may have been different and the verse may have described the dismantling of the temple. In sum, the meaning of the verse differs according to the context in which it is read. 76 77

3.4 Despoliation of the Temple

45

reference to some kind of precious material used for the decoration of temples, such as gold, silver, ivory, or precious stones.81 Whichever interpretation one prefers, both raise two points important for our study: first, 2 Kgs 18:16 affirms that not only Solomon but also his successor Hezekiah had inlaid the temple with precious metals; second, to give away the temple wealth meant not only to surrender precious objects, but also to strip the temple of its decoration or to dismantle some parts of the temple. Wealth seized by an invader: Judah was not always willing to surrender its national treasure, and in four cases the temple wealth was taken away by force.82 The first looting of the temple is attributed to Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (1 Kgs 14:25–28).83 A brief note in annalistic style summarizes Shishak’s invasion during Rehoboam’s reign (928–911 BCE).84 The biblical authors did not mention any destruction in Judah, focusing instead on the looting of the temple treasury.85 Shishak took as plunder the golden shields of Solomon that decorated the temple. The focus of the text differs in the Greek versions and in MT. In MT, Shishak’s invasion and looting of the temple form a prelude to the description of the liturgy performed when the king entered the temple.86 The Greek versions add that Shishak took the golden spears that David “took out of the hand of the sons of Adrazaar king of Suba, and brought them into Jerusalem.” The Greek translations thus put stronger emphasis on the value of the seized objects. Both the Greek and Hebrew versions agree that Shishak took away everything from the temple, i.e., all that was in the temple treasury. Two interpretations of this statement have been proposed: it should be read literally, or it is a hyperbolic reference to the payment of a high indemnity.87 There are two reasons to infer that the biblical writers intended the former. First, the biblical texts distinguish between giving the temple wealth to an invader and an invader taking the temple wealth by force; our case is an example of the latter. Second, the root ‫לקח‬ is used also in 2 Kgs 25 to describe the seizure of booty from the temple by the Babylonians. Thus, putting together the textual variants and the interpretation If we examine it in its final context, then the first interpretation is also plausible. If we examine it as an independent source, then the second interpretation is more plausible. 81 Read in connection with 2 Kgs 18:15, the ellipsis would refer to silver. However, since the verse is syntactically disconnected from its context and possibly from a different source, the ellipsis could refer to any kind of precious material. 82 For the theological evaluation of the despoliation of the temple and a review of previous scholarship on this theme, see Evans 2010, 31–36. 83 For the archaeological impact of Shishak’s campaign, see Faust 2006, 140–141. 84 Mayes 2011, 129–134. 85 The goal of this campaign was not to conquer Israel but rather to seize booty (Noth 1968, 331). Two booty-oriented raids, Shishak’s and Hazael’s invasions, emptied the temple treasuries. In both cases, shortly after the temple had been built (Solomon) or rebuilt (Joash), its wealth was taken away by invaders. 86 Noth 1968, 330. 87 Jones 1984, 278–279; Provan 1997, 123.

46

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

of ‫ל־מגִ ּנֵ י ַהּזָ ָהב‬ ָ ‫ת־ּכ‬ ָ ‫ת־הּכֹל ָל ָקח וַ ּיִ ַּקח ֶא‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬, we can conclude that 1 Kgs 14:25–28 stated that Shishak or his army removed the treasures of the temple by force and emptied the temple treasury. The biblical text, however, does not advocate the idea that the pharaoh damaged the temple itself. The second time the temple was despoiled was during Amaziah’s reign (2 Kgs 14:8–14). The king’s predecessor, Joash (836–798 BCE), faced an attack by the Aramaean king Hazael, and Joash was indeed able to save Jerusalem from destruction, but only by emptying the treasuries of the renovated temple (2 Kgs 12:19). Joash’s successor Amaziah (798–769 BCE) found himself in a different situation. After Adad-nirari III’s conquest of Damascus in 796 BCE, Aramean control over Palestine waned. Both the Judean king Amaziah and the Israelite king Joash took advantage of the changed political situation and achieved important victories: Joash defeated Aram and Amaziah defeated Edom. Next the Bible reports a confrontation between Joash and Amaziah, who sought to affirm the position of the southern kingdom. The battle took place at Beth-Shemesh and resulted in the overwhelming defeat of Judah.88 The Judean king was captured and some Judeans were taken as hostages. The Israelite king Joash reached Jerusalem and “made a breach of four hundred cubits in the wall of Jerusalem, from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate” (2 Kgs 14:13). Then he looted the temple. The first peculiarity in this report is that King Joash is the subject of the verb ‫לקח‬. The gold and silver of the temple were not handed over to him, rather he carried them off by force. The second peculiarity in this text is that Joash took “all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house” (2 Kgs 14:14). This indicates that the precious objects were taken from the temple and the palace, but not from the temple treasury, because Amaziah’s predecessor Joash had already emptied the temple treasury in order to pay off Hazael. There are some reasons that allow us to conclude that Joash’s looting of the temple was more violent than that of Shishak. First, the renewed excavations at Beth Shemesh exposed a destruction layer that the excavators dated to the first half of the eighth century BCE and connected with the war between Amaziah and Joash.89 Moreover, the biblical authors claimed that the city walls of Jerusalem were breached for a length of four hundred cubits. Only the Babylonians succeeded in inflicting more damage upon the city (2 Kgs 24–25). It is hard to imagine that Joash’s “taking away” of the precious objects from the temple was a peaceful act. On the contrary, it was a violent looting that could very well have resulted in damage to some parts of the temple building. Since Amaziah’s predecessor had already emptied the temple treasury, it is logical to conclude that the temple décor suffered the most serious damage (cf. 2 Kgs 18:16).

88 89

For the historical background of this battle, see Hasegawa 2012, 109–110. Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009, 127–136.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

47

To complete this list we must note that the Babylonians despoiled the temple twice: once during the reign of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:11–13), and once during the reign of Zedekiah (2 Kgs 25:13–17). These two despoliations were stages in the destruction of the temple. Conclusion Ancient Near Eastern temples also served as national treasuries and protected national wealth. Such wealth was stored in the temple not only in the form of precious objects but also in the form of valuable materials that were skillfully used to decorate the temples.90 As for the temple of Jerusalem, we can conclude that the wealth of the nation was stored in the temple treasury, i.e., in storerooms or compartments that were part of the temple building. It is no wonder that the temple wealth, whether in the form of precious objects stored in the temple treasury or in the form of precious materials decorating temples, attracted foreign invaders. Despoliation of temples and looting inevitably affected the décor of the temple and possibly also damaged the temple building. From the biblical texts we learn that the wealth of the temple of Jerusalem was used twice to pay off invaders and twice to bribe a foreign power. In Hezekiah’s case, the surrender of the temple wealth actually meant stripping the temple of part of its decoration or even dismantling the decorated parts of the temple. Moreover, on four occasions the temple wealth was forcefully removed, first by the Egyptian pharaoh Shishak and then by the Israelite king Joash. The violence of Joash’s looting was surpassed only by the Babylonians during their destruction of the city and the temple. The last two lootings of the temple during the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem resulted in the destruction of the temple.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple Religious reforms and shifting religious currents were other processes that time after time left visible traces on temple architecture.91 The introduction of new divinities into a temple cult constituted the most obvious reason for adapting a temple. In addition, changes in an existing theology might also call for temple modification. For example, the concept of a relatively unmediated relationship between humans and gods and free access to the divinities would require a configuration of the temple and its precincts different from that of a cult that enforced a strict prohibition on seeing or approaching gods.92 A change in the importance of a temple relative to other cultic sites could also lead to its reconstruction. The more prominent a temple became, the more personnel it needed. The more perCf., for example, RINAP 4 48:66–72. See, for example, Gerhards 2008. 92 Zwickel 1999, 92–93. 90 91

48

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

sonnel and cult objects the temple needed, the more space was required. In sum, when a temple for one reason or another no longer met the needs of contemporary religious practices, it had to be rebuilt. Finally, there was another religious reason for the reconstruction of temples that is unrelated to changes in cult or status, namely the need to maintain or restore the ritual purity of a sanctuary.93 In practice, the routine purification of a temple often entailed its reconstruction. The Israelite religion was no exception to these ancient Near Eastern patterns, and as in the surrounding nations, cultic reforms were milestones along the Israelites’ path towards their God.94 One can still vividly perceive the struggles, tensions, and uneasy shifts in Israelite religion through the perspectives preserved in later redactions and variant editions of biblical texts describing religious reforms. The Bible reports eight important moments of religious alteration in the southern kingdom: Solomon’s dedication of the temple and his backsliding (1 Kgs 6–8; 11), Rehoboam’s response to Jeroboam’s schism (1 Kgs 12–14), Asa’s reform (1 Kgs 15), Joash’s repair of the temple (2 Kgs 12), Ahaz’s construction of a new altar (2 Kgs 16), Hezekiah’s reform (2 Kgs 18–19), Manasseh’s counter-reform (2 Kgs 21), and Josiah’s purge (2 Kgs 22–23).95 The first religious reform is attributed to King Asa (908–867 BCE). His mother Maacah introduced an abominable object (‫)מ ְפ ֶל ֶצת‬ ִ into the cult in Judah. In response, the righteous Asa stripped Maacah of the rank of queen mother and had the idolatrous object cut down and burned in the Wadi Kidron (1 Kgs 15:12–13). M. Noth suggested that this object had not been located in the temple area and thus Asa’s reform did not affect directly the temple.96 3.5.1 Jehoiada and Joash The first religious reform that the biblical redactors directly associated with the temple of Jerusalem is attributed to the priest Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11).97 After tumultuous events in the northern and southern kingdoms, Athaliah ascended the throne in Jerusalem.98 She was a blood relative of the House of Omri, whose dynasty formed political alliances through marriage both with Phoenicia, by wedding Ahab to Jezebel, and with Judah, by wedding Athaliah to Jehoram.99 Schaudig 2010, 141. Leslie 1936; Dietrich and Klopfenstein 1994; Gittlen 2002; Beckman and Lewis 2006; Van Seters 2011. 95 For a short review of the religious reforms and their impact upon the temple of Jerusalem, see Zwickel 1999, 164–169. 96 Noth 1968, 337. 97 For a synchronic analysis of this chapter, see Dutcher-Walls 1996, 23–179. 98 Levin 1982, 83–90. For a more recent reconstruction, see Robker 2012, 285–302. 99 Athaliah is said to be the daughter of Ahab as well as Omri (cf. 2 Kgs 8:18, 26). The most probable solution to the problem is that she was a daughter of Omri, but grew up at the court of Ahab (Katzenstein 1955, 197). For the role of the queen mother and its ancient Near Eastern background, see Spanier 1998, 136–146. 93 94

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

49

After the death of Ahaziah, king of Jerusalem, the queen mother Athaliah seized power. By eliminating potential claimants to the throne, Athaliah interrupted the Davidic dynasty (the House of David) and replaced it with the House of Omri.100 This dynastic interruption lasted for six years. The priest Jehoiada, with the help of temple and palace guards, organized a putsch and installed on the throne young Joash (836–798 BCE), who had escaped Athaliah’s deadly clutches. The execution of the queen mother and the installation of Joash not only reestablished the Davidic dynasty on the throne but also triggered the first major religious reform in Jerusalem (cf. §3.2). The priest Jehoiada renewed the treaty between the king and God, and this reform resulted in the destruction of the temple of Baal and the execution of his priests (2 Kgs 11:17–20). Beside its description of political and religious events, 2 Kgs 11 contains several important remarks on the temple. In order to use these remarks to understand the changes the temple of Jerusalem underwent, it is necessary to apply Literaturkritik. C. Levin convincingly argued that the text in its final form is a compilation of various layers.101 He concluded that the verses mentioning the temple (2 Kgs 11:3a, 4aβ, 4bα, 7, 11a, 13b, 19a) do not belong to the original annalistic account but to a later redaction. By introducing the temple layer into the text, the redactor not only connected the putsch with the temple, but through the temple (the House of the Lord) also with the Davidic dynasty (the House of David). The House of David, once Athaliah had eliminated the royal offspring, seemingly ceased to exist and was replaced by the House of Omri. Such an interruption of the Davidic succession would, however, have contradicted God’s promise to keep David’s offspring on the throne. The temple stratum casts a new light on the “interrupted dynasty of David.” Since Athaliah was never accorded the literary trappings of monarchy, in the form of introductory and closing regnal résumés framing the account of her career, she was not treated as the founder of a new dynasty.102 Moreover, the House of David only seemingly ceased to exist – in fact, it continued through the child Joash, who was hidden in the temple. The temple (the House of the Lord) sheltered Joash (the House of David).103 In this sense, the temple played a crucial role in preserving the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. In other words, by introducing the temple layer the biblical redactor “defines the temple as the dominant space within which the really significant actions gain their authority and power.”104

100 Solvang 2003, 154–172. For the sociological background of this massacre, see Schulte 1994, 144–145. 101 Levin 1982, 18–82. 102 Hobbs 1985, 145. Similarly, the account of Tibni’s career lacks introductory and closing regnal résumés, indicated that he was not considered to be the founder of a new dynasty in the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 16:15–28). 103 Solvang 2003, 161–172. 104 Long 1991, 150.

50

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

The temple stratum of 2 Kgs 11 A close reading of the temple stratum that C. Levin identified as an independent source in Kings brings to the surface two elements important for our study. The first regards the column or platform that the young king used at the moment of his coronation; the second concerns the free access of the people to the temple, which the Chronicler found problematic. Column: Second Kings 11:14 and 23:3105 are the only two places in the Bible that mention that an ‫“ ַעּמּוד‬column” stood in the temple area. In 2 Kgs 11:14 the ‫ַעּמּוד‬ is where Jehoiada made young Joash stand ‫“ ַּכ ִּמ ְׁש ָּפט‬according to the custom.” When Queen Athaliah came to the temple, she interpreted Joash’s posture together with the acclamations of the crowd as the beginning of Joash’s reign and the end of her own. In 2 Kgs 23:3 the ‫ ַעּמּוד‬was the place from which King Josiah concluded the covenant between God and the people.106 In both cases, the ‫ ַעּמּוד‬is intimately connected with the exercise of royal power. In the expression ‫ל־ה ַעּמּוד‬ ָ ‫ע‬, ַ the preposition ‫ ַעל‬can be translated as either “upon” or “next to.” The latter option is generally chosen, yielding “next to the column.” This understanding of the phrase, however, depends on the Chronicler’s reworking of 2 Kgs 11:14 in 2 Chr 23:13, which reads ֹ‫ל־עּמּודו‬ ַ ‫עֹומד ַע‬ ֵ ‫ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ‫“ ַּב ָּמבֹוא‬the king was standing next to / upon his ‘column’ at the entrance (i.e., of the temple).”107 The Chronicler felt the need to reword his source in Kings because it implied that the people and Athaliah had entered the sacred space of the temple. In order to preserve the purity of the temple from intruders, the Chronicler chose to locate the ‫ ַעּמּוד‬near the entrance of the temple, so that the people and the queen could have seen Joash from outside the temple. But by resolving the purity issue in this way, the Chronicler created a situation that misled some commentators seeking to explain ‫ ַעּמּוד‬in 2 Kgs 11:14 and 23:3. The Chronicler’s placement of the ‫ ַעּמּוד‬at the entrance of the temple led them to identify the ‫ַעּמּוד‬ with one of the two columns cast by Solomon (1 Kgs 7:15–21). Consequently they interpreted the preposition ‫ ַעל‬as “next to” and not as “upon.”108 Recognizing that the Chronicler’s theological prejudices guided his rephrasing of 2 Kgs 11:14, many linguists and commentators have rightly hesitated to base their interpretation of the function and location of the ‫ ַעּמּוד‬on 2 Chr 23:13.109 Jehoiada’s/Joash’s and Josiah’s reforms display several linguistic and narrative links. Besides the elements mentioned above, both reforms conclude with the stipulation of a covenant and the destruction of cult places dedicated to Baal and the priests who served there. 106 An ancient Jewish guide to Jerusalem mentions a column together in/near the “second quarter” of the city, where Huldah dwelled (2 Kgs 22:14). See Alobaidi, Goldman, and Küchler 1987, 40, lines 1–6. 107 In the case of Josiah’s reform, the Chronicler replaced ‫ ַעּמּוד‬with ‫( ע ֶֹמד‬‭2 Chr 34:31). See Willi 1972, 121–122. 108 See, for example, Montgomery 1951, 421. Some commentators explored the issue in detail but ultimately opted for the interpretation based on Chronicles (e.g., Gray 1970, 575). 109 Hobbs 1985, 142. 105

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

51

Instead of “next to the column,” the phrase ‫ל־ה ַעּמּוד‬ ָ ‫ ַע‬can also be translated “upon the pedestal/platform/stairs.”110 Thus the most recent edition of Gesenius’s dictionary translates it as an elevated platform situated in the temple.111 This interpretation of ‫ ַעּמּוד‬in 2 Kgs 11:14 and 23:3 – “upon the platform” – is the best we have: an elevated platform, similar to a column, was located in the temple area, and it was the setting for special, or what we might call ex cathedra, proclamations of the king.112 The narrative of the temple’s construction and dedication in 1 Kgs 6–8, however, makes no reference to such a column or platform. Free access: Another similarity between 2 Kgs 11 and 22–23 is the people’s ability to freely access the temple.113 When Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram and sister of Ahaziah, saw Athaliah massacring the royal offspring, she hid the one-year-old Joash and his nurse. Second Kings 11:3a adds that “He (Joash) stayed with her114 for six years, hidden in the House of the Lord.”115 There are other remarks in 2 Kgs 11 that allude to free access to the temple: the priest Jehoiada brought the guards to the temple (11:4); there were people, not priests or Levites, keeping guard over the temple (11:6–7); the coronation of Joash took place in the temple (11:11–12); and the queen Athaliah went to the temple only to discover that she had been betrayed (11:13, 15b116). We find similar remarks in 2 Kgs 22–23: there were various types of workers and supervisors who worked in the temple or were invited to work on the temple (22:4–7), the prophetess Huldah lived in the Mishneh (22:14), and Josiah with all the Judeans entered the temple (23:2). The notion of public access to the temple raised questions about the purity of the sacred space, and therefore the Chronicler corrected these passages as he had done in the case of the ‫עּמּוד‬. ַ 117 To this end 2 Chr 22:11–12 adds that Jehosheba was the wife of the priest Jehoiada, and in this way the Chronicler clarified how Jehosheba could have remained with Joash in the temple for six years, as stated in 2 Kgs 11:3.118 Similarly, in order to deal with the question of whether the guards could enter the temple, 2 Chr 23:6 adds that no one could enter the temple

Würthwein 1984, 351. HAHw 980b–981a. 112 For the ancient Near Eastern parallels, see Zwickel 1999, 153–154. 113 Solvang 2003, 165n34. 114 “Her” could refer to Jehosheba, as most commentators think, but also to Joash’s nurse. 115 Codex Vaticanus reads “house,” not “the house of the Lord,” and thus suggests that the boy was hidden in the palace, not in the temple (Hobbs 1985, 134). 116 This verse is most likely a later correction introduced into the text (Levin 1982, 23–27). 117 Similarly, Nehemiah claimed that he did not want to take refuge in the sanctuary, because a mortal cannot enter it and come out alive (Neh 6:10–13). 118 2 Chr 22:10 reads “with them,” not “with her” as in 2 Kgs 11:3. In this way the Chronicler explains that the boy was in the temple with the priest Jehoiada and his wife. 110 111

52

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

except the priests and those Levites who were ministering in the temple.119 To underline the role of the temple as a sacred place inaccessible to the people, 2 Chr 23:3–11 explains that the guards were collaborating with the Levites. According to 2 Chr 23 only the priests and the Levites, not the guards, could enter the temple during the putsch, because they were ritually clean. In sum, the Chronicler made it clear that the people and Queen Athaliah did not enter the temple but stayed in the temple courts (2 Chr 23:5, 11120). Finally, the Chronicler stated that the guards and the Levites had to kill anyone who tried to enter the temple (2 Chr 23:7), and not just those who breached the ranks of the guards (2 Kgs 11:8). Jehoiada’s putsch finishes with the appointment of the gate guards, who must not allow anyone who is unclean to enter the temple (2 Chr 23:19). These corrections121 demonstrate that the temple layer of 2 Kgs 11 identified by C. Levin was composed before Chronicles, since public access to the temple constituted a serious theological problem for the Chronicler and thus he made an effort to eliminate the suggestion that anyone could access the temple.122 Conclusion The account of the religious reform of Jehoiada mentions an architectural feature, a “column” or “platform,” that is not mentioned in 1 Kgs 6–8 but plays an important role as the cathedra of the king. The annalistic description of this religious reform was augmented by a literary stratum dated to a different period that presumes free public access to the temple, a concept unacceptable to the Chronicler. 3.5.2 Ahaz’s Reform Whereas the previous reform was situated in the period of the Aram–Israel wars, Ahaz’s reform unfolded in a new political and cultural milieu. During Ahaz’s reign (743–727 BCE) Assyria aspired to extend its power over the Levant. Levantine kings did their best to resist Assyrian hegemony. Aram, Phoenicia, Israel, Philistia, and the Arabs in the Jordanian desert created a strong anti-Assyrian coalition backed up by Egypt, but Judah hesitated to join them. Pekah, king of Israel, and Rezin, king of Damascus, pressed Judah to join the coalition in order to create an impenetrable anti-Assyrian block in the Levant. King Ahaz decided against an allegiance with Aram, and facing the invading Aramean and Israelite troops he 119 However, 2 Chr 23:3 follows Kings in identifying the temple as the place in which Jehoiada stipulated a covenant between King Joash and the people. 120 2 Chr 23:12 reads that Athaliah went to the people who were in the temple – i.e., in the courts of the temple, according to v. 5 (cf. also 23:14). The column on which King Joash stood was also in the court (23:13). 121 A similar “correction” also appears in Josephus (Ant. 9.173–185); cf. Begg 2000, 207– 224. 122 For other arguments, see Zwickel 1999, 174–180.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

53

opted to send a present to Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BCE). In other words, he voluntarily submitted to Assyria. Although the results of Assyria’s three consecutive campaigns against the Levant (734–731 BCE) can hardly be interpreted as an altruistic move by Tiglath-pileser III to aid Ahaz, the outcome was quite positive for Judah. In contrast to Aram, Israel, and Philistia, which had to bear the heavy consequences of their rebellion, Judah came out of this war safe and sound. Ahaz paid tribute, but no destruction or deportation took place.124 His voluntary submission to Assyria won him ample room to maneuver.125 The relative freedom and protection the Assyrians guaranteed to submissive vassals allowed Ahaz to undertake several important reforms. Two of his reforms concerned the temple. The first included the construction of a new altar (2 Kgs 16:10–16), the second involved the reconstruction of the temple (2 Kgs 16:17–18). 123

3.5.2.1 Ahaz’s New Altar Scholars have dedicated many studies to the Syro-Ephraimite war, and rightly so, since this is one of the few passages in the Bible that can be examined in the light of a relatively substantial amount of extrabiblical material. However important this historical event might have been, the final redactors did not present it as the center of 2 Kgs 16. They dedicated twice as much space to describing the changes introduced in the temple (2 Kgs 16:10–18) as they spent on the Syro-Ephraimite crisis (2 Kgs 16:5–9). This indicates that in the final arrangement of the text, the description of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis served above all to provide the context for changes in the cult. According to the biblical authors, of Ahaz’s two interventions in the temple – the construction of the new altar and the reconstruction of the temple – the former was the more important one. Many scholars have studied Ahaz’s new altar in the context of Assyrian imperial practices.126 In this study, the topic is approached from a different direction: How did the biblical authors assess the new altar, and how did it influence the temple architecture? Was the new altar condemned or approved? Whereas in 2 Kgs 16 Ahaz is a “normal” bad king, in 2 Chr 23 he is depicted as the prototype of the bad king who led Judah astray. Does this negative evaluaFor the possible meanings of the term ‫ׁש ַֹחד‬, see Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 188. For more details, see Oded 1972; Na’aman 1995b; and Dubovský 2006b. 125 For Assyrian political pragmatism, see Bagg 2013, 129–133. 126 This heated discussion ended in the coalescence of a middle position between two extremes: on the one hand, the claim that the new altar was built to comply with an Assyrian policy of forcing vassals to worship Assyrian gods is to be rejected; on the other hand, the claim that the Assyrians did not engage in any manipulation of local cults should also be excluded. For major studies of the impact of Assyria on Israelite religion, see McKay 1973; Spieckermann 1982; and Holloway 2002. 123 124

54

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

tion of Ahaz apply to his construction of the new altar as well? In other words, do the biblical texts allow us to conclude that the construction of the new altar was another abominable act of Ahaz?127 The fact that in 2 Kgs 16:10–16 there is no explicit condemnation of the new altar suggests that the biblical texts do not compel the reader to conclude that the new altar was ever perceived as an abomination.128 This suggestion can be further buttressed. First, it must be noted that in 2 Kgs 16:2–4 Ahaz is condemned because he followed the customs of the nations expelled by the Lord. These verses speak about burning incense and making offerings on the high places, practices that presuppose the use of altars, but these activities are not explicitly associated with the temple of Jerusalem. In 2 Kgs 16, only vv. 2–5 describe Ahaz’s unfaithfulness.129 The rest of the chapter has a different tone and therefore some scholars assign it to a different source.130 The Chronicler, however, gave a different interpretation of Ahaz’s reign. According to the Chronicler, Ahaz was the worst king in Judah because he never repented, contrary to Manasseh (2 Chr 34:11–17). In accordance with this negative perception, all of Ahaz’s deeds in 2 Kgs 16 are interpreted in Chronicles as sinful acts. To this end the Chronicler interpreted the invasion of Tiglath-pileser III as divine punishment for Ahaz’s sins. Second Chronicles 28:24b mentions another sin of Ahaz: the altars (in plural) that he built in every corner of Jerusalem. These altars were most likely of small size, similar to those erected by Manasseh (cf. 2 Kgs 21:4–5).131 Conversely, 2 Kgs 16:10–16 speak 127 The opinions of scholars vary: some consider the construction of the altar an abomination (e.g., Cohn 2000, 111–115), while others underline the objective tone of the presentation, which contains no hint of condemnation (e.g., Montgomery 1951, 459–460); finally, other scholars are more cautious in their conclusions (e.g., Smelik 1997, 274–278). 128 Another opinion is that the original “temple source” adopted a neutral tone, but the insertion of the text into the context of 2 Kgs 16 changed its character and turned it into a critique of Ahaz’s sins; see Smelik 1998, 157. Smelik’s conclusions, however, are based on a division of the text (160) that does not take into consideration the connections within the text observed by Zwickel (1990, 205). Moreover, Smelik assumed that the gift sent to Tiglath-pileser III was another abominable act on the part of Ahaz. However, it is difficult to arrive at this conclusion from 2 Kgs 16, which contains no negative appraisal of this act, unlike 2 Chr 28. In fact, Asa, who made a similar payment (1 Kgs 15:19), was regarded as a good king. 129 P. Heger (1999, 264n80) rightly noticed that “there was a distinction between the adoption of alien forms of worship and ceremonies, which were not denounced, and the adoration of alien gods, which was passionately criticized.” 130 For a more detailed analysis of sources, see Würthwein 1984, 389–391. According to K. A. D. Smelik (1998, 156), 2 Kgs 16:10–16 came from “some sort of historiographical text discussing changes in the Temple of Jerusalem.” 131 Cf. 2 Chr 33:3–5, where the temple court is explicitly mentioned. About forty-five small altars have been unearthed in Israel. These small and medium-size altars, usually made out of limestone or clay, were mostly likely used for incense offerings, or other concomitant functions such as libations or the display of food offerings (Zukerman 2012, 34–36). For other stone and clay altars, see Zwickel 2010a, pls. 161–164. For a discussion of small altars and their uses, see Gitin 2002.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

55

about building one large altar in the temple of Jerusalem and moving aside an old bronze altar, not about constructing small altars. A possible indirect condemnation of Ahaz’s altar can be derived from 2 Chr 28:22–23. The Chronicler explicitly mentions Damascene divinities. These verses elaborate on Ahaz’s visit with Tiglath-pileser in Damascus and give it a different spin. However, Ahaz is not blamed for constructing the altar, but for worshiping the gods of Damascus.132 Second Chronicles 28:22–23 condemns the worship of Aramean gods, similar to the way in which the Bible condemns the worship of other foreign gods. In an ironic way, the Chronicler demonstrated the paradox of Ahaz’s behavior: Ahaz worshipped the oppressors’ divinities and credited them with victory and help. The Chronicler condemned Ahaz’s idolatry but he carefully avoided any condemnation of Ahaz’s new altar. In sum, the final redactor of 2 Kgs 16 refrained from any direct or indirect condemnation of Ahaz’s altar, and the Chronicler declined to include it in the list of Ahaz’s sins. Moreover, there are several literary links between 2 Kgs 16:10–16 and 1 Kgs 8:64 that lead us to two conclusions. First, the removal of the bronze altar was not a sinful act, since Solomon already considered it too small. Hence Solomon had to consecrate a space in the court to perform sacrifices, and likewise Ahaz built in the temple court an altar for sacrifices to the Lord. Even the sacrifices offered on Ahaz’s altar are similar to those offered by Solomon. Thus these literary links suggest that the biblical authors saw the displacement of the bronze altar and the construction of a new altar as an outgrowth of Solomon’s cultic practices. Furthermore, the new altar was built by the priest Uriah, known as a “reliable witness” of the Lord (Isa 8:2). This implies that the priest constructing the altar was not an “idolatrous” priest, but a priest held in high esteem by Isaiah. The faithful priest Uriah expressed no reservation against constructing the new altar; on the contrary, MT, Codex Alexandrinus, and the Antiochian version emphasize Uriah’s willingness to fulfill Ahaz’s command.133 Neither was the inauguration of the altar an “idolatric” action (cf. Lev 3–7; 8; 23; Num 28).134 Once the altar was consecrated, the priest Uriah used it to offer legitimate sacrifices to the Lord. The sacrifices offered on the altar were similar to those offered in Ezek 46:13–15 and those offered by Solomon (1 Kgs 8). In sum, the biblical texts in all preserved manuscripts do not suggest that sacrifices to “other” gods or by the priests of Baal and Ashera were ever offered on this new altar. We can conclude with T. R. Hobbs that “the motivation of Ahaz was clearly not apostasy, since the

2 Chr 28:22–23 and 2 Kgs 16:10–11 refer to the heavy impact of Aram on Israel and Judah during the Assyrian period and Judah’s willingness to worship Aramean gods (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 193). 133 Codex Vaticanus (4 Kgdms 16:10–11) omits the repetitions that underline Uriah’s willingness to build the altar. 134 Rendtorff 1967, 46–50. 132

56

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

organization of the sacrifice that follows is consistent with the other legislation on sacrifice in the OT.”135 Finally, the formula “He did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God, as his ancestor David had done” (2 Kgs 16:2; 2 Chr 28:1) is different from the full condemnation formula used for the northern kings (2 Kgs 15:3, 9, 18, 24) or for southern kings such as Manasseh, Amon, and Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 21:2, 20; 23:32). This formulation suggests that Ahaz was not as bad as his successors.136 Thus the biblical texts do not allow us to conclude that the construction of the new altar was an abominable act.137 On the contrary, the biblical authors and later redactors considered the altar and the offerings on the new altar to be a legitimate form of cult to the Lord.138 This conclusion has two implications for our theme. Ahaz changed the sacred landscape of the temple: he built a large altar in front of the temple that became the altar of the Lord and set aside the traditional bronze altar. However, neither of these acts was considered an abomination. What kind of altar did Ahaz commission? The previous section showed that even though Ahaz failed to live up to the standards of the Deuteronomistic redactors, the introduction of the new altar and the modifications to the temple complex it would have required were legitimate changes in the eyes of the biblical authors. This raises the question of what kind of altar Ahaz commanded to be built. In order to answer this question we will have to dedicate a few paragraphs to 2 Kgs 16. W. Zwickel pointed out the parallels between the types of sacrifices described in 2 Kgs 16:13 and 16:15.139 Besides these parallels, the literary device Wie­ deraufnahme (resumptive repetition) furthermore connects both sections: the direct speech in 16:15 resumes the key phrase ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬from 16:13. A Wiederaufnahme usually frames a digression, in this case a short description of what happened to the bronze altar (16:14). The parallels identified by Zwickel and the Wiederaufnahme suggest that 2 Kgs 16:12–15 is structured thus:

A Narrative B List of offerings C Bronze altar A′ Narrative B′ List of offerings C′ Bronze altar

v. 12 v. 13 v. 14 v. 15a v. 15b–c v. 15d

Hobbs 1985, 217. For a detailed study of these formulas, see Wissmann 2008. 137 Heger 1999, 263–264. 138 For a similar set of reasons, see Levin 2013, 202–205. 139 Zwickel 1990, 199–206. His division into textual layers was challenged by Ernst (2006, 214–217). 135 136

57

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

According to this structure, MT, A, and Ant. present two altars. The first was inspired by the altar in Damascus (sections A, B, A′, B′). This altar is referred to as “the altar” or “the large altar.”141 Uriah built this altar; Ahaz consecrated it and commanded Uriah to use it. The material of which the altar was built is not mentioned. The second altar is mentioned in the digression (“as for the bronze altar …”) in 16:14, which has its counterpart in 16:15d. These two verses refer to a bronze altar.142 The small bronze altar is known from the tabernacle account (Exod 38:30; 39:39) and probably represented an old style of altar.143 According to 2 Kgs 16:14 this altar was moved to the northern side of the new altar.144 The tradition of the bronze altars became more complicated in Chronicles. On the one hand, the Chronicler preserved the tradition of a small bronze altar that was too small (2 Chr 7:7); on the other hand, he attributed to Solomon the construction of a large, cubic bronze altar measuring 20 cubits in each dimension (2 Chr 4:1).145 This is the only large bronze altar mentioned by the Chronicler, who does not associate such an altar with Ahaz. The Chronicler’s account of Solomon’s large altars, however, seems to be more a literary construct than a reflection of reality. N. H. Gadegaard showed that the bronze altar could not have been used for burnt sacrifices. First, the bronze would begin to melt during the sacrifice; second, bronze is an excellent conductor of heat and consequently a bronze altar with sacrifices burning upon it would become a furnace that no priest could touch or ascend.146 Gadegaard’s study showed that neither bronze nor flint altars could have been used for burnt offerings. This indicates that if Ahaz constructed a large altar for burnt offerings, it must have been made out of stone, most likely limestone. Since Ahaz ascended it, it makes sense to conclude that this altar included stairs. 140

For an excellent review of opinions on bronze altars, see Ernst 2006, 213n421. 2 Kgs 16:12 reads, “and Ahaz approached the altar and ascended it.” This suggests that the altar was a large altar, and thus it make sense to identify “the altar” in 2 Kgs 16:12, 13, 14c with “the large altar” in 2 Kgs 16:15. 142 The account of the two altars in 16:13–15 in Codex Vaticanus differs in subtle but significant ways; the differences, however, are to be explained as evidence of early exegesis and are not of text-critical significance. In short, whereas in MT, A, and Ant., Ahaz declares that the blood from sacrifices carried out on the large altar should be sprinkled on the large altar, in B he specifies that the blood from those sacrifices should be sprinkled on the small altar that he has otherwise reserved for personal use. 143 For the problems associated with the bronze altar(s), see Heger 1999, 233–256. 144 P. Heger (1999, 273) interprets the expression “before the Lord” in 2 Kgs 16:14 as indicating that the bronze altar was originally in the debir and Ahaz moved it from the temple and placed in the court. 145 2 Chr 7:7 refers to the altar that was too small as “the altar that Solomon made”; this is the altar first mentioned in 2 Chr 4:1 and is to be distinguished from the bronze altar of the tabernacle, mentioned in 2 Chr 1:5–6, on which Solomon offered sacrifices. 146 Gadegaard 1978, 38. 140 141

58

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

I propose a new approach to the accounts of the altars in Kings and Chronicles. According to 1 Kgs 8:64 the traditional bronze altar was too small and made out of bronze. This altar is mentioned subsequently in 2 Kgs 16:14 and Ezek 9:2, but it does not appear in the list of the bronze utensils looted by the Babylonians in 2 Kgs 25:13–17 and Jer 52:17–23.147 Since the bronze altar was too small, Solomon offered sacrifices in the temple court.148 According to 2 Kgs 16:10–16, Ahaz built a large altar for various types of sacrifices, burnt sacrifices included. His successor Hezekiah, however, did not build a new altar; nonetheless the Rabshaqeh accused Hezekiah of forcing the Judeans to sacrifice on the altar in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18:22). Similarly, the account of Josiah’s reform presupposed the altar in the temple (2 Kgs 23:9; cf. also Isa 6). Hezekiah’s successors built and removed altars of other gods in the temple area, but none of them was credited with building a large altar to the Lord. Finally, the tradition of one central altar was a key point of the so-called centralization reform (cf. Deut 12), and according to J. Milgrom, Ezek 8:16 refers probably to the same altar.149 Bearing in mind the complexity of the biblical tradition, studied in detail by P. Heger,150 I suggest the following development of the traditions about the altars. The traditional small bronze altar progressively became unfit for use because of its size, and therefore a part of the court was used for offerings.151 The biblical tradition attributes this innovation to Solomon. According to 2 Kgs 16:10–16 Ahaz built a large altar used for public purposes. This new altar was probably built on the same place in the court where sacrifices were previously offered, or it replaced the altar mentioned in 2 Kgs 11–12. Hezekiah adopted this large altar, which was built by the pious priest Uriah at Ahaz’s command.152 Both Hezekiah and Josiah used this altar – either the original one or a replica – as the altar of the Lord to further their religious reforms. For the Chronicler, however, it was impossible to connect the altar of the Lord with Ahaz, who was the worst king of Judah; hence the Chronicler does not repeat the account of Ahaz’s altar from Kings. Nevertheless, the Chronicler still had to explain why the traditional small bronze altar from the time of Moses had been replaced by a large altar. His solution was to attribute the construction of the large altar in the courtyard to Solomon; like the traditional small altar, Solomon’s large altar was made out of bronze. C. Levin (2013, 210–214) suggested that the bronze altar was given, together with other bronze vessels, to Tiglath-pileser. This opinion, however, does not take into consideration Ezek 9:2, where the bronze altar is mentioned. 148 2 Kgs 11:11 and 12:10 mention an altar in the temple precincts. This altar cannot be identified with that of Ahaz; see Zwickel 1999, 144–145. 149 Lerner 2007, 2:14. 150 Heger 1999. 151 Possibly on a bamah; see Gadegaard 1978, 40. 152 There is no evidence in the text for the interpretation of 2 Kgs 18:4 proposed by Landersdorfer (1927, 206), according to which Hezekiah removed, in addition to the neḥuštan, Ahaz’s altar. 147

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

59

Why was this altar important? The impact of Ahaz’s new altar upon the temple can be inferred from the type of sacrifices offered upon it. Sections B and B′ (cf. above) clearly distinguish between two types of sacrifices according to who is offering them. In B (v. 13) the king offered his sacrifices. In B′ (v. 15) the king commanded Uriah to offer similar sacrifices for the people. This distinction seems to have regulated the practice of sacrifice in the temple. The altar was no longer the place where the royal sacrifices were exclusively offered, but the location where the people’s sacrifices would be offered as well. Comparing 1 Kgs 8:62–64 with Ahaz’s new rules, it should be noted that while in 1 Kgs 8 the sacrifices were offered by the king, on the new altar priests could offer sacrifices on behalf of all the people. Furthermore, W. Zwickel’s study on altars and burnt offerings in Canaan and Israel suggested that altars for burnt offerings were not a typical feature of temples in the southern Levant. While discussing the burnt offerings mentioned in other parts of the Bible, he showed that it cannot be safely concluded that burnt offerings were introduced during Ahaz’s reign.153 Even though Zwickel’s caution is well justified,154 2 Kgs 16 suggests that Ahaz introduced into the temple complex an altar for burnt offerings, and that the common people could now offer them in the temple, together with other offerings, with priests as intermediaries. Conclusion Let us sum up the results concerning Ahaz’s altar. Taking advantage of the relative freedom granted him in exchange for his loyalty to Assyria, Ahaz introduced some important changes into the temple, including a new altar. However problematic the king and his actions might have been in other ways, the biblical redactors restrained from condemning Ahaz’s new altar. Ahaz’s altar was much larger than the bronze altars used so far; it was most likely built out of stone and equipped with steps. Ahaz’s altar allowed the priests to present the offerings of the whole people and the daily offerings. Burnt offerings were not introduced by Ahaz, but this practice presupposed a gradual process whereby presentation offerings gradually disappeared and burnt offerings became more prominent.155 Therefore the new altar not only led to a rearrangement in the temple precincts, it also became the altar upon which the people’s offerings were offered to the Lord. In other words, the new altar was a materialization of gradual cultic changes. The daily offerings and burnt offerings became dominant; the latter required a larger altar. That the offerings of the people were regularly performed in the temple meant that the temple had ceased to be a private royal temple and had become, Zwickel 1990, 207–209. One possibility is that before Ahaz, most offerings took the form of gift offerings, whereas Ahaz introduced burnt offerings; see Heger 1999, 262–275. Heger’s theory was criticized by Ernst (2006, 217). 155 Heger 1999, 271–279. 153 154

60

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

as suggested by A. Lemaire, a “national shrine”156 that people could enter to offer their sacrifices. 3.5.2.2 Other Changes in the Temple Removal of Bronze Objects After the description of the new altar, the narrative continues with two particularly complicated verses, 2 Kgs 16:17–18. Despite many unresolved problems, scholars have achieved clarity on some points. The first regards the division of the text. Are vv. 16:17–18 a continuation of 16:10–16, or is there a shift in the narrative? Second Kings 16:17 could be connected with the previous passage describing Ahaz’s new altar, in which case the removal of the temple furniture (2 Kgs 16:17) would be the continuation of the narrative about Ahaz’s altar (2 Kgs 16:10–16). Most ancient and modern interpreters, however, see a narrative pause after v. 16, “The priest Uriah did everything that king Ahaz had commanded him.”157 The pause suggests that vv. 17 and 18 are to be read together.158 Accepting this proposal, C. Levin159 and R. L. Cohn160 studied vv. 17–18 using diachronic and synchronic methodologies respectively and reached the conclusion that the verses should be interpreted in light of the expression ‫ ִמ ְּפנֵ י ֶמ ֶלְך ַאּׁשּור‬at the end of v. 18. According to these two scholars, this expression resumes 16:8, i.e., it explains what Ahaz did in order to bribe Tiglath-pileser III. Though it is true that vv. 17 and 18 should be read in the light of ‫מ ְּפנֵ י ֶמ ֶלְך ַאּׁשּור‬, ִ linking them with v. 8 raises some problems. First, the gift in v. 8 was of gold and silver, whereas v. 17 speaks about bronze. Second, the phrases ‫ ִמ ְּפנֵ י ֶמ ֶלְך‬or ‫ ִמ ְּפנֵ י ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬suggest reverence and fear before the king (1 Kgs 3:28; 12:2; Isa 20:6; Jer 42:11; 2 Chr 32:7). Therefore, vv. 17 and 18 could refer to any pro-Assyrian gesture. In this sense, the verses could describe later tributes Ahaz or his successors had to pay to Assyria (cf. Isa 8:4), particularly if we recall that vassals could pay their regular tributes in bronze items as well (RINAP 1 8:10).161 The removal of the bronze

Lemaire 2011, 198–200. Long 1991, 174–176. This consensus can be further buttressed: (1) MT inserts a space between vv. 16 and 17 that is not, however, in Codex Leningradensis. (2) Whereas 16:10–16 attributes the building activity to Uriah, the following verses attribute it to Ahaz; indeed, after v. 16 Uriah disappears from the narrative. (3) Verse 16 uses a command-completion formula that usually concludes a section of a narrative (cf., e.g., Gen 6:22; Exod 39:22; 40:16; Num 1:54; 2:34). 158 An alternative analysis of the literary links within 2 Kgs 16 was proposed in Ernst 2006, 55–65, 105–109. 159 Levin 2013, 210. 160 Cohn 2000, 111. 161 Part of the tribute Hezekiah paid to Sennacherib consisted of bronze utensils (cf., for example, RINAP 3/1 4:57; cf. also RINAP 1 8:8–12). For Judean relations with Assyria and the payment of tributes, see Dalley 2004. 156 157

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

61

items from the temple uses the same verb as in 2 Kgs 18:16 and it indicates what it meant in practice to make a payment to Assyrian kings (cf. §3.4).162 Another consensus regards the list of bronze items that were taken away from the temple in 2 Kgs 16:17: Ahaz removed the borders of the bases,163 the laver, and the lions that were under the great sea. Their disappearance from the temple court must have had an impact on its appearance. Installation of a pavement After the removal of the bronze lions from under the bronze vessel called “the sea” (2 Kgs 16:17), Ahaz put it upon a ‫מ ְר ֶצ ֶפת ֲא ָבנִ ים‬. ַ This phrase points to another change in the temple. The first word of the phrase is a hapax and it is rendered in translations as “a pavement of stones” or as “Steinpflaster.”164 The Greek versions render the passage as ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν ἐπὶ βάσιν λιθίνην “he placed it (the great sea) upon a stone base.” The Greek translations led O. Thenius to the conclusion that Ahaz removed the bronze lions and replaced them with a base made out of stone.165 However, MT reads “upon the ‫ ַמ ְר ֶצ ֶפת‬of stones.” The term ‫ ַמ ְר ֶצ ֶפת‬is a noun related to the verb ‫“ רצף‬to pave,” which is the verbal form of the noun ‫ֶר ֶצף‬ “hot, glowing stones” (1 Kgs 19:6; see also the form ‫ ִר ְצ ָּפה‬in Isa 6:6). Another related noun is ‫ר ְצ ָפה‬,ֽ ִ meaning “a floor paved with precious and semi-precious flag-stones.”166 Therefore ‫ ַמ ְר ֶצ ֶפת‬should be translated as “pavement” (cf. KJV). The plural noun ‫ ֲא ָבנִ ים‬suggests that the pavement was made out of stones, rather than a mud-brick pavement. Generally there were two types of stone pavements. In Ain Dara large stone slabs were laid down to form a beautiful pavement for the temple.167 In Tell Tayinat the court before the temple (Building XVI) was paved with cobblestones.168 The original meaning of the Hebrew text, as well as the cobblestone pavement in the Tell Tayinat temple, which is dated to the First Temple period, suggest that the expression ‫ ַמ ְר ֶצ ֶפת ֲא ָבנִ ים‬should be translated as “cobblestone pavement.” In some cases a cobblestone floor was covered with plaster, thus the translation “plastered pavement of cobblestones” is also possiLevin 2013, 210. The expression ‫ת־ה ִּמ ְסּגְ רֹות ַה ְּמכֹנֹות‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬presents a minor difficulty. If it is read with two definite articles, then we have to interpret the expression as referring to two different items: the borders and the stands. In light of 1 Kgs 7:27–37, the borders were part of the stands, therefore scholars emend the expression to ‫ת־מ ְסּגְ רֹות ַה ְּמכֹנֹות‬ ִ ‫;א‬ ֶ see, for example, Burney 1903, 328. No such emendation is necessary for the expression ‫ ַה ָּב ָקר ַהּנְ ח ֶֹׁשת‬later in the verse: the term “bronze” with the article is in apposition with “cattle.” For a similar case, see v. 14 (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 189). 164 Šanda 1912, 195. 165 Thenius 1873, 376–377. 166 HALOT 954. 167 For illustrative photos see, for example, Monson 2000, 25–26. For the proposal that the temple court was paved with large hewn stones, see Hurowitz 2009, 21. 168 Harrison 2012b, 133. 162 163

62

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

ble.169 Cobblestone pavements were used in Israel to pave city streets and squares (cf., for example, Tel Dan, Beth Shemesh, and Timnah). Smaller stones, often arranged in decorative patterns, are well known in Levantine architecture during the Iron Age.170 Thus the cobblestones are not a feature that can help us to date this note more precisely. The cobblestone pavement mentioned in this secondary note could have been there since Solomon’s time, or perhaps during one of the later reconstructions of the temple the pavement of the courtyard was changed. The absence of any other reference to this pavement in Kings, combined with the introduction of a new altar and a new policy of public access to the temple at the end of the preexilic period (cf. §3.5.1 and §3.6.2), would suggest that the pavement was introduced later, most likely during Ahaz’s reconstruction of the temple. 3.5.2.3 Crux Interpretum Second Kings 16:18 describes another important set of changes in the temple architecture. Before we evaluate the changes in the architecture to which this verse directly or indirectly refers, it is necessary to dedicate a few lines to the syntax of this difficult verse. The subject, even though unspecified, can be derived from the context – namely the king, Ahaz. The predicate is the verb ‫ה ֵסב‬. ֵ The verb has two direct objects, ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬. ְ The expressions ‫ ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬and ‫ִמ ְּפנֵ י‬ ‫ ֶמ ֶלְך ַאּׁשּור‬are locative and causal adjuncts correspondingly. Scribal error or abbreviation? The first problem is the expression ‫ת־מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬. In its present form in MT, ‫ ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬is a feminine adjective and thus it cannot modify the construct chain ‫מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, ְ which contains two masculine nouns. If the final ‫ ה‬is deleted as a scribal error due to dittography (‫)ה ִחיצֹונָ ה ֵה ֵסב‬, ַ the form becomes a masculine adjective modifying the construct chain ‫מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬, ְ i.e., ‫ת־מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ַה ִחיצֹון‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬ “the outer entry of the king.” It is also possible to take ‫ ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬as an accusative of direction with the ending ‫ה‬-, i.e., “outwards.” Finally, it is possible to explain the form as an elliptical reference to ‫“ ֶה ָח ֵצר ַה ִחיצֹנָ ה‬the outer court,” in which case the word ‫“ ֶה ָח ֵצר‬court” would have been omitted. The problematic adjective has a parallel in Ezek 8:3, ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ל־ּפ ַתח ַׁש ַער ַה ְּפנ‬ ֶ ‫“ ֶא‬to the door of the inner gate.” Like 2 Kgs 16:18, Ezek 8:3 has been understood as a scribal error (cf. §3.6.3). Each verse contains a construct chain composed of two masculine singular nouns followed by an unexpected feminine singular adjective (“inner,” “outer”). A similar construction also occurs in Ezek 42:4 ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ל־ה ְּפנ‬ ַ ‫א‬, ֶ 169 For an example, see Braidwood, Braidwood, and Haines 1960, 55. For a discussion of a similar proposal, see Thenius 1873, 376. The pavement of the outer court is mentioned in Ezek 40:17–19; the term there, however, is ‫ר ְצ ָפה‬,ֽ ִ which would indicate a different type of floor. 170 See, for example, Parker 2002, 32.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

63

which exegetes have also corrected. Thus we have already three cases of the same grammatical phenomenon that have all been interpreted as scribal errors. The most conspicuous case of the omission of a noun from the noun-adjective phrase is in Ezek 41:17, which contains both the noun-adjective phrase and the lone adjective. Verse 17b contains the phrase ‫ּוב ִחיצֹון‬ ַ ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫;ּב ְּפנ‬ ַ the first word ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ְּפנ‬ is an abbreviation of the full form ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬in v. 17a (also in 1 Kgs 6:27; 7:50; Ezek 42:15),172 while the second word ‫ּוב ִחיצֹון‬ ַ means “outside.” These cases show that occasionally the biblical scribes dropped the noun from a familiar noun-adjective compound, especially in architectural terminology. In 2 Kgs 16:18 the setting is the temple area, and so we can presume that the omitted word is “the outer (court)”; in the case of Ezek 8:3 it is possible to restore the word “court”173 but also “city” (cf. the ketiv reading in 2 Kgs 20:4). In sum, I suggest that these cases should not be interpreted as scribal errors but as cases, albeit rare, of omitting a noun from a noun-adjective compound in architectural terminology in particular. Accordingly, I translate the expression ‫ת־מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬ as “and the royal entrance of the outer (court).” This interpretation implies that Ahaz rebuilt two courts: the reconstruction of the royal entrance had an effect on the appearance of the entrance of the outer court, whereas the construction of the new altar and the cobblestone pavement and the removal of the bronze objects affected the main court, most likely the inner court. 171

Removed, surrounded, reoriented, or transferred? Another problem in this verse is the verb ‫ה ֵסב‬. ֵ It is a third-person masculine singular qatal form from the Hiphil stem of ‫סבב‬. The commentaries and modern translations offer three translations: “he (Ahaz) removed” (NAS, NAU), “he turned” (KJV), or “he changed” (TOB). The interpretation of the Hiphil of ‫ סבב‬as “he removed” is listed in HALOT (740), with a reference to H. Weippert’s study of Jer 21:1–7. Weippert showed that in Jer 21:4 the Hiphil of the verb ‫ סבב‬is used as a synonym of the Hiphil of ‫“ ׁשוב‬to turn away, to turn around.”174 The interpretation “to remove” is often buttressed in the commentaries by the replacement of ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬with ‫“ ֵה ִסיר‬to remove” (RSV), which is, according to J. Gray, “a pure conjecture.”175 Both HALOT as well as modern translations interpret 2 Kgs 16:18 The reading “the inner (court)” is preferred; see Block 1998, 561. To this list we can also add Ezek 41:15: ‫ימי וְ ֻא ַל ֵּמי ֶה ָח ֵצר‬ ִ ִ‫יכל ַה ְּפנ‬ ָ ‫“ וְ ַה ֵה‬the hekal, the inner (room), and the ulams of the court.” This text shows that the adjective with the article ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ַה ְּפנ‬ stands for “the inner room/house.” It is possible to translate this phrase as “the inner hekal and the ulams of the court”; however, this would be the only reference to the inner hekal in the Bible. 173 If “court” is restored, it need not necessarily refer to the inner court of the temple; it could have been the inner court of the palace or of the city, for example. 174 Weippert 1970, 405–408. However, the context of Jer 21:4 is different and Weippert suggests translating the verb as “to turn away.” 175 Gray 1976, 635 n. c. 171 172

64

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

in light of v. 17. Since in v. 17 Ahaz removed bronze items, they conclude that v. 18 describes the same activity, i.e., Ahaz removed from the temple two objects, ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬. ְ However, this interpretation is far from secure. All the Greek versions use ἐπέστρεψεν, whose stem means “to turn, to return,”176 and thus do not interpret the term ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬as “(Ahaz) removed” but rather as “he turned.” The other dictionaries are more cautious when suggesting the meaning “to remove” proposed by HALOT.177 The Hiphil of ‫ סבב‬occurs thirty-three times in the Bible and the dictionaries offer several different definitions.178 For our purposes only a few occurrences are relevant and I will divide them into four groups. Surround with: The first interpretation stems from 2 Chr 14:6.179 According to this verse, Asa decided to build fortified cities in Judah. The expression ‫וְ נָ ֵסב‬ takes a double object here: let us surround these cities (first object) with the (city) wall and towers, gates, and bars (four items comprising the second object).180 Applying this interpretation of the term to our case, we can propose that Ahaz reconstructed the exterior of the temple in such a way that the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ְמבֹוא‬ ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬encompassed the temple; in other words, they were built around the temple.181 Following this interpretation, ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬must have been objects that could have been built around the temple, and consequently we have to interpret the subordinate clause ‫ר־ּבנּו ַב ַּביִת‬ ָ ‫“ ֲא ֶׁש‬which they built in the House” as indicating that Ahaz built the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬in the temple complex and not in the temple building. This interpretation is the least plausible and it is impossible to imagine surrounding the temple with the royal entrance of the outer court. Reorient: The second interpretation is based on most occurrences of the Hiphil of the verb ‫“ סבב‬to turn.” The verb refers to various degrees of turning, up to a complete reversal.182 This would mean that Ahaz rebuilt the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ְמבֹוא‬ ‫ ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬in such a way that they were reoriented where they stood, without being transferred to a different place or removed.183

GELS 235. BDB (686), DCH (6:108), and TDOT (Garcia-López 1999, 10:131) do not give the meaning “to remove”; HAHw (870) gives “er entfernte” and suggests the meaning “to remove” for 2 Kgs 16:18 only as a possibility. 178 The best divisions of the lemma are given in HAHw 869–870 and DCH 6:108–109. 179 ‫יחים‬ ִ ‫ּוב ִר‬ ְ ‫ּומגְ ָּד ִלים ְּד ָל ַתיִם‬ ִ ‫חֹומה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ָע ִרים ָה ֵא ֶּלה וְ נָ ֵסב‬ ֶ ‫יהּודה נִ ְבנֶ ה ֶא‬ ָ ‫אמר ִל‬ ֶ ֹ ‫“ וַ ּי‬For he said to Judah, ‘Let us build these cities and surround them with walls and towers, gates and bars’ ” (NAU). 180 For a similar meaning of the verb ‫סבב‬, see Exod 13:18; Josh 6:11; 2 Sam 5:23; 1 Chr 14:14; 2 Chr 13:13; Ps 140:10; and Ezek 47:2. 181 Barnes 1908, 266. 182 “To turn away/around/back”: weapons (Jer 21:4), eyes (Song 6:5), face (1 Kgs 21:4; 2 Kgs 20:2; 2 Chr 29:6; 35:22; Isa 38:2; Ezek 7:22), heart (1 Kgs 18:37; Ezra 6:22); “to turn something or someone towards”: people (Judg 18:23; 2 Sam 3:12; 1 Kgs 8:14; 2 Chr 6:3), kingdom (1 Chr 10:14; 12:24). 183 Gray 1976, 635. 176 177

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

65

Transfer: The third possibility is to interpret the verb ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬as “to turn away,” i.e., to transfer from one location to the other.184 In this case, Ahaz would not have removed the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬but simply relocated them from one part of the temple complex to the other. Following this logic, R. Kittel and many exegetes after him interpreted the expression ‫ ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬as ‫“ ִמ ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬from the House of the Lord.”185 In sum, Ahaz moved the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬from the interior of the temple to an exterior part of the temple complex, most likely to one of the courts.186 This interpretation presupposes that according to the subordinate clause ‫ר־ּבנּו ַב ַּביִת‬ ָ ‫א ֶׁש‬, ֲ the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬was built inside the temple building and not in the court. A modified version of Kittel’s proposal can be accepted: the phrase refers not to the transfer of the object from the inside of the temple to the outside but its transfer from one part of the court to the other. Transform: The fourth possibility would be to understand the Hiphil here in the sense “to turn into,” or “to change something (into something else),” such as a name (2 Kgs 23:34; 24:17; 2 Chr 36:4). Ahaz would thus have transformed the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬into something else.187 This interpretation is more general and would simply indicate that the king transformed some parts of the temple, without specifying the details. In other words, Ahaz rebuilt these two structures. The meaning of ‫הׁשבת מיסך‬ The previous discussion has shown that there are three possible interpretations of the verb: (1) Ahaz reoriented/turned around the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫;מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ְ (‭2) Ahaz transferred ‪the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬to … ; (3) Ahaz transformed the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬. ְ The next step in our analysis is to study the meaning of ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬. ְ J. A. Montgomery concluded that this verse describes the “reconstruction of buildings unknown to us, but so well known to the contemporary recorder that he could use categorical terms.”188 Let us examine the expression ‫ הׁשבת מיסך‬and present some possible interpretations and weigh their impact upon our study. The first question is who built this structure. The MT has a third-person plural verb: ‫ר־ּבנּו ַב ַּביִת‬ ָ ‫[“ ֲא ֶׁש‬the structure] which they built in the house.” As the subject is not further clarified, the third-person plural verb should be interpreted as a collective plural that may be translated in the passive voice, i.e., “which had been built.”189 The Greek transSuch as a dead body (2 Sam 20:12) or the ark (1 Sam 5:8–10; 1 Chr 13:3). Kittel and Nowack 1900, 272. 186 According to C. Levin (2013, 213), once the king had built a new altar he needed a way to access it, and therefore Levin translated this part of the verse thus: “und den [äußeren] Zugang des Königs verlegte er am Hause Jahwes.” 187 Ernst 2006, 42. 188 Montgomery 1951, 462. 189 Montgomery 1951, 464. 184 185

66

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

lations render the verb in the singular and most of them specify that “the house” should be understood as the temple: ᾠκοδόμησεν ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου “he built (a base for the throne) in the House of the Lord.” The Greek versions thus interpret the third-person plural form to mean that it was Ahaz who first built the structure and that he “turned it around” because of the Assyrian king. The next question is, What does ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬mean? M. J. Mulder, following the Greek tradition (τόν θεμέλιον τῆς καθέδρας), proposed reading the difficult construct chain ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬as a reference to a royal throne cast out of metal. He derived ‫ הׁשבת‬from the verb ‫“ יׁשב‬to sit” (the place where one sits, i.e., throne, chair) and ‫ מיסך‬from the verb ‫“ נסך‬to pour, to cast (metal).”190 In this sense, 2 Kgs 16:17 and 18 would both describe the removal of various metal objects from the temple to be given as a tribute to the Assyrian king(s). Although this translation is well supported by the Greek versions, our earlier discussion of the verb ‫ֵה ֵסב‬ suggests that it is unlikely: the verb can be interpreted in different ways but the interpretation “to remove” is the least plausible one. Another problem with this interpretation is the expression ‫ר־ּבנּו ַב ַּביִת‬ ָ ‫א ֶׁש‬, ֲ preserved in all manuscripts. The verb ‫ בנה‬is not used to describe the casting of bronze objects in the tabernacle narrative of Exodus, nor in the temple narrative in 1 Kgs 6–8. On the contrary, it is used of the construction of a building or its parts. Thus the meaning of the verb ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬and the use of the verb ‫ בנה‬tend to rule out Mulder’s proposal.191 B. Stade suggested deriving ‫ מיסך‬from Akkadian massaku and ‫ הׁשבת‬from Akkadian šubtu.192 The term massaku is another spelling of the word maštaku “dwelling place, abode, cell.” The term is often applied to the cella of a temple.193 The word šubtu means “residence.” In this reading, Ahaz made a change in the very heart of the temple building, i.e., its inner shrine. A. Šanda proposed an even more revolutionary interpretation. He translated the problematic expression ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬as “Sabbatskammer.” His interpretation started with the term ‫ר־ּבנּו ַב ַּביִת‬ ָ ‫“ ֲא ֶׁש‬which they built in the house.” According to this subordinate clause, the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬was built in the temple and not in the temple court. The ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬was a sort of chamber, cell, or any kind of a sheltered place built within the temple and used for cultic purposes, in particular for Shabbat celebrations. Šanda presented several examples from the ancient Near East of temples that contained various types of chambers. He went one step further in his analysis, claiming that the two direct objects ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ are linked together and that the “royal entrance” led to the ‫מיסך הׁשבת‬. The term ‫ ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬is an adjective, “the outer entrance”; the final ‫ ה‬is due to dittography. Mulder 1982, 168–170. Another factor militating against Mulder’s hypothesis is the syntax of vv. 17 and 18. Verse 17 lists the bronze items as direct objects of the verb ‫וַ יְ ַק ֵּצץ‬, whereas the term ‫מיסך הׁשבת‬ is the direct object of ‫ה ֵסב‬. ֵ The syntax thus indicates that v. 17 lists one type of intervention – the removal of the bronze items – whereas v. 18 lists another type of intervention. 192 Stade and Schwally 1904, 259. 193 CAD M/1, 392b. 190 191

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

67

Šanda concluded that this outer entrance led to the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬not through the main gate but through the side wall of the temple.194 The proposal that has achieved a stronger consensus is to accept the Masoretic vocalization ‫ה ַּׁש ָּבת‬, ַ i.e., Shabbat, and to derive ‫ מיסך‬from the verb ‫“ סכך‬to cover, to shelter” (i.e., a place of shelter, a covering).195 The exact translations vary, e.g.: “the covered portal used for Shabbat,” “the Shabbat passageway,” “the barrier of Shabbat.”196 The interpreters in this camp locate this structure outside the temple building, interpreting ‫ר־ּבנּו ַב ַּביִת‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ֶׁש‬as “which they built in the temple area,” and ‫ ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬in ‫ת־מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ֶא‬as a masculine adjective, “the outer entrance of the king” (cf. above). The royal entrance The second direct object of the verb ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬is ‫ת־מבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶא‬. The term ‫ ָמבֹוא‬may refer to an entrance to a city (Judg 1:24–25; 1 Chr 4:39) or a building.197 The latter sense is important for this study. First to be noted is that the term is not another word for “gate”; it rather describes an entryway (Ezek 46:19), an entrance to a gate (2 Chr 23:15).198 It also refers to the entrance to the royal palace (2 Kgs 11:16) and to the entrance to the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 16:18 and Jer 38:14199). Jeremiah 38:14 reads ‫יׁשי ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ֵבית יְ הוָ ה‬ ִ ‫ל־מבֹוא ַה ְּׁש ִל‬ ָ ‫“ ֶא‬to the third entrance that is in the House of the Lord.” Several scholars identify “the third entrance” in Jer 38:14 with the “entrance of the king” in 2 Kgs 16:18. Most commentators accepted the proposal of P. Haupt, who suggested that the third entrance was the southern gate.200 However, Haupt himself was more cautious in wording his proposal than his followers. On the contrary, we have seen that “entrance” was not a synonym of “gate.” Moreover, there is no evidence that the “entrances” in 2 Kgs 16 and Jer 38 describe the same entrance to the temple. We can only conclude that 1 Kgs 6–8 did not mention any entrance to the temple. Šanda 1912, 204–206. Montgomery 1951, 464. It is possible that this structure was made of metal, in which case vv. 17 and 18 would describe the removal of metal objects to pay off Tiglath-pileser III (Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 189). 196 Gray 1970, 635 n. a. 197 For other meanings see DCH 5:123–124; HALOT 541; HAHw 623. 198 In this case it is a synonym of ‫( ֶּפ ַתח‬‭2 Kgs 23:8). For other occurrences see also 4QShirShabf 14 I, 4. In 2 Chr 23:15, ‪ָ‫יְמיתּוה‬ ִ ַ‫ּסּוסים ֵּבית ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ו‬ ִ ‫ר־ה‬ ַ ‫ל־מבֹוא ַׁש ַע‬ ְ ‫ וַ ָּתבֹוא ֶא‬refers to 2 Kgs 11:16, ‫ּתּומת ָׁשם‬ ַ ַ‫ּסּוסים ֵּבית ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך ו‬ ִ ‫ְך־מבֹוא ַה‬ ְ ‫וַ ָּתבֹוא ֶּד ֶר‬. The Chronicler replaces ‫ּסּוסים‬ ִ ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה‬with ‫ּסּוסים‬ ִ ‫ר־ה‬ ַ ‫מבֹוא ַׁש ַע‬. ְ The gate ‫ּסּוסים‬ ִ ‫ ַׁש ַער ַה‬is known from Jer 31:40 and Neh 3:28, where it refers to a city gate. 199 1 Chr 9:19 refers to the entrance to the encampment of the Lord. 2 Chr 23:13, which mentions the entrance to the temple, rewrites 2 Kgs 11:14; see Klein 2012, 327. In the temple envisioned by Ezekiel, there are various entrances to the temple complex (Ezek 42:9; 44:5; 46:19). 200 Haupt 1902, 585–586. Haupt’s interpretation was accepted, for example, by Lundbom (2004b, 76). 194 195

68

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

Second Kings 16 mentions only one entrance and Jer 38 knows at least three.201 Of these three entrances, the third one must not have been a public entrance to the temple, since the discussion between Zedekiah and Jeremiah at that location was to be conducted in secret.202 We are far from reaching a conclusive solution, but instead of going to great lengths to harmonize the references to entrances, it seems more reasonable to assume that the temple entrances underwent various reconstructions (cf. §3.6.1). Finally, due to the size of the royal entrance it seems implausible that Ahaz would have transferred the whole entrance to another part of the temple. Similarly, it makes little sense to speak about a reorientation of the royal entrance. Possible interpretations of 2 Kgs 16:18 In spite of the uncertainties that remain, the analysis presented above can at least identify which solutions are less feasible. First, the verb ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬should not be translated as “to remove” or “to surround,” and it makes little sense to translate the verb as “to reorient” or “to transfer.” This excludes the possibility of interpreting 2 Kgs 16:18 to mean that Ahaz removed the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬from the temple, or that Ahaz built the ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬around the temple. Consequently the verb ‫ ֵה ֵסב‬can be translated: “Ahaz transformed/rebuilt …” Second, assembling five examples from other parts of the Bible I have argued that ‫ ַה ִחיצֹונָ ה‬stands for “the outer (court),” and that the royal entrance thus stood in the outer court. Third, the analysis of possible interpretations of the term ‫מיסך‬ ‫ הׁשבת‬showed that the least feasible is that of Mulder, i.e., a royal throne cast out of metal. Fourth, the comparison of the occurrences of the term ‫ ָמבֹוא‬indicates that it is better to suppose that the entrances to the temple underwent changes than to attempt to harmonize the relevant texts. What interpretations of Ahaz’s alteration of the temple architecture remain possible? Let us present the two most plausible ones and discuss how they relate to our topic. First, the structures ‫ הׁשבת מיסך‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬were located in the same part of the temple – the outer courtyard. Ahaz transformed or rebuilt the royal entrance and the Shabbat structure without moving them to another place. In this case, Ahaz did not alter the temple building itself, and his reconstruction affected only the precincts of the temple. Second, the structures ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬and ‫ ְמבֹוא ַה ֶּמ ֶלְך‬were not located in the same part of the temple; the former was in the temple building and the latter in the outer court. The ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬would refer in this case to an inner chamber or a cella within the temple. This proposal implies that Ahaz rebuilt both the interior of the temple and the royal entrance of the outer court. This might have been the reason why Ahaz closed the doors of the temple (2 Chr 29:24). Another possible entrance to the temple is mentioned in 2 Kgs 23:11. MT reads ‫ִמּבֹא ֵבית־‬ ‫ ;יְ הוָ ה‬however, the term ‫ ִמּבֹא‬can be revocalized as ‫מבֹוא‬. ְ 202 Holladay 1986, 290. 201

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

69

3.5.2.4 Synthesis: Ahaz and the Architecture of the Temple Despite many unresolved exegetical questions, the reign of King Ahaz marked an important step in the development of the temple and its cult. His submission to Assyria, on the one hand, resulted in the payment of an initial heavy gift or bribe followed by Judah’s presentation of regular tribute to Assyria. To pay off Tiglath-pileser III Ahaz had to use the temple treasures. The despoliation of the temple usually affected its decoration and furnishings (cf. §3.4), and so Ahaz or his successors removed some bronze items from the temple court, such as the borders of the bases, the laver, and the lions that were under the great sea. Even though these subtractions did not change the layout of the temple, they had an impact on its appearance. On the other hand, voluntary submission to Assyria gave Ahaz the liberty to undertake important reconstruction projects. While paying a visit to Tiglath-pileser III, Ahaz was inspired by the altar he saw in Damascus and asked the priest Uriah to replicate it. The introduction of the new altar, most likely made out of stone, resulted in the displacement of the traditional bronze altar. I have argued that the biblical authors did not explicitly condemn this new altar. On the contrary, it became the established place for making burnt offerings, as well as the daily offerings brought to the temple, thereby turning what was once essentially a private royal chapel into a publicly accessible site of worship. The complicated verse 2 Kgs 16:18 points to other reconstruction projects undertaken by Ahaz. Two possible interpretations of the verse suggest two possible changes. According to the first one, Ahaz rebuilt the royal entrance of the outer court and the ‫“ מיסך הׁשבת‬Shabbat structure,” whatever the exact meaning of this expression might be. This reconstruction would have been part of a much larger reconstruction of the temple courts that included the removal of the bronze objects. A note in 2 Kgs 16:17 adds another tile to the mosaic: Ahaz or his predecessors paved the temple court, where the altar was located, with cobblestones. The new pavement changed significantly the appearance of the temple precincts. According to this interpretation Ahaz made major changes in both the outer court and the court where the altar was located (probably the inner court). The other interpretation of 2 Kgs 16:18 is more radical. Besides rebuilding the royal entrance of the outer court, Ahaz extended his efforts to the temple building itself and rebuilt ‫“ מיסך הׁשבת‬the inner cella”/“the Shabbat room” of the temple. In this scenario, Ahaz not only modified both courts of the temple but also reconstructed the interior of the temple building.203

203 For an interesting reconstruction of the temple precincts that displays the problematic elements, see Salignac Fénelon 1904, F. 26.

70

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

3.5.3 Hezekiah – Manasseh, Amon – Josiah The religious significance of the temple cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of its layout and the sacred space it enclosed. The furniture and decoration of the temple also determined its significance. The furnishings not only had an esthetic element, they also had a great impact on the cultic practices carried out in the temple. This explains the sensitivity of the biblical authors and later redactors toward details regarding the furniture and vessels of the temple. The book of Kings describes several moments when new objects were introduced into the temple or old ones were removed from it. Even though the first removal of objects is described in 1 Kgs 15:13, our attention will be turned toward four kings – Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah – on whom the biblical writers focused while describing the last phase of the southern kingdom. The account of this period in 2 Kgs 18–23 has a strong theological current and has been overlaid with political and ideological interpretation by later redactors. In this section I analyze the rhetoric and literary structure of these chapters, as it can shed some light on our topic. 3.5.3.1 Hezekiah’s Reform Hezekiah’s reform (2 Kgs 18:4) and his centralization of the cult in Jerusalem alluded to in 2 Kgs 18:22 have been heatedly debated in recent years. Scholars have assembled numerous textual arguments and archaeological data to substantiate Hezekiah’s reform or to challenge its historicity.204 In this debate it is necessary to keep in mind that the authors of the book of Kings dedicated just one verse (2 Kgs 18:4) to Hezekiah’s reform, contrary to the extended treatment it receives in 2 Chr 29–31.205 A comparison of Chronicles and Kings shows that whereas Chronicles focuses on Hezekiah’s reform, in Kings the focus is on Hezekiah’s faithfulness at a moment when Assyrian pressure was at its maximum. Within 2 Kgs 18–19, 2 Kgs 18:4 is part of the narrative introduction preparing the reader for the confrontation between the Lord and Ashur – the kingdom as well as the god.206 The verse is inserted into the theological assessment of Hezekiah’s reign; the assessments of Judean kings were mainly based on the king’s attitudes towards the high places, altars, and other cultic objects. The verse contains four verbs: a qatal form followed by three we-qatal forms and a clause explaining the etiology of the bronze serpent (neḥuštan). The first two verbs (‫ ֵה ִסיר‬and ‫ )וְ ִׁש ַּבר‬are followed by objects in the plural: “he removed the high places and he broke down the pillars (‫)ה ַּמ ֵּצבֹת‬.” ַ The third verb (‫)וְ ָכ ַרת‬ is followed in MT by a singular object: ‫ת־ה ֲא ֵׁש ָרה‬ ָ ‫“ ֶא‬he cut down the asherah”;207 Since the bibliography on Hezekiah includes over one hundred entries, I will refer to just a few items pertinent to our theme: Na’aman 1995a; Williamson 1996; Vaughan 1999; Fried 2002; Swanson 2002; Edelman 2008. 205 Williamson 1982, 350–351. 206 For a rhetorical analysis of 2 Kgs 18–19, see Evans 2009, 87–165. 207 Day 1986, 398–408. 204

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

71

however, all Greek manuscripts present a plural object: ἐξωλέθρευσεν τὰ ἄλση “he destroyed the groves.” The fourth verb, ‫וְ ִכ ַּתת‬, is also followed by a singular object: ‫“ נְ ַחׁש ַהּנְ ח ֶֹׁשת‬he smashed the bronze serpent.” None of the four verbs, however, is accompanied by a phrase indicating the site of Hezekiah’s activity. Where were the condemned objects located? Despite the consensus that Hezekiah removed the bronze snake from the temple,208 none of the ancient Hebrew or Greek witnesses specifies this. On the basis of other texts in Kings, it can be inferred that the first two actions – the removal of the high places and the destruction of the pillars – did not take place in the temple of Jerusalem.209 The identification of the place where the third action – cutting down the asherah – occurred depends on whether the Hebrew or the Greek tradition is followed. If the object of the verb is taken as plural (cf. the Greek “groves”), it would refer to the asherahs that were at the high places, i.e., not in the temple of Jerusalem.210 However, if the object of the verb is read as a singular form, and the Masoretic division of the verse by the atnah after “and he cut down the asherah” is ignored, then the two actions with singular objects – the cutting down of the asherah and the smashing of the neḥuštan – may be grouped together and distinguished from the two previous actions directed toward plural objects. Since the singular form “asherah” in the sections of Kings referring to Judah mainly indicates the asherah placed in or removed from the temple of Jerusalem (1 Kgs 15:12–13; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:4, 6),211 it can be concluded that the asherah in 2 Kgs 18:4 was also located in the temple. And if we read the clauses containing singular objects together, then it may be inferred that both the asherah and the neḥuštan were located in the temple. As a result of this analysis, it is possible to suggest that Hezekiah first removed the abominable objects located outside the temple of Jerusalem (the high places and the pillars) and then rid the temple itself of the asherah and the neḥuštan. Although this interpretation of 2 Kgs 18:4 is widely accepted,212 the alternative solution is equally probable – namely, that neither the asherah nor the neḥuštan was located in the temple. As T. A. Busink has argued, if the neḥuštan was visible to the people, then it could not have been housed in the adytum, and consequently the inference about the location of the asherah is harder to justify.213 In sum, if we read “the asherahs” with the Greek tradition and accept Busink’s argument about the neḥuštan, Hezekiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 18:4 did not affect the temple but concerned only the cultic places outside the temple; if we read “the 208 See, for example, Landersdorfer 1927, 206; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 218; Sweeney 2007, 403. 209 For the references and their meaning, see Würthwein 1984, 411–412. 210 Similarly, MT 2 Kgs 21:3 contains a singular form whereas the Greek manuscripts have a plural. This reading is further buttressed by an atnah that binds together the first three verbs. 211 Exceptions: 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 23:15. 212 Cf., for example, Fritz 2003, 359. 213 Busink 1970, 288.

72

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

asherah” with the Hebrew tradition, it is possible to infer that Hezekiah removed both the neḥuštan and the asherah from the temple, actions that would have had an impact on the furnishing of the temple and the cultic practices performed in the temple. The latter interpretation will be followed here. Earlier we observed that the removal of the neḥuštan from the temple or the temple area is mentioned in the theological assessment of Hezekiah’s reign. Can this note be used to trace the changes in the preexilic temple? The answer depends on the date of the note. Since the Deuteronomistic redaction of Kings would hardly have questioned the authority of Moses, the note on the removal of the neḥuštan is a strong candidate for a pre-Deuteronomistic text.214 Hence, despite the theological emphasis of the passage, it is safe to assume that the text reflects a preexilic alteration of the temple furniture. 3.5.3.2 The Reforms of Manasseh and Amon The description of Manasseh’s reign contains a few verses (2 Kgs 21:4–7) that mention the temple and point to changes in its furniture. Before we evaluate the importance of these verses for the development of the temple, it is appropriate to dedicate a few lines to the literary context of these verses, which determines the nature of the biblical text. Second Kings 21:3–7 follows immediately after the stereotyped formula that provides a negative assessment of Manasseh’s reign: “He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (21:2). The theological evaluation of Manasseh’s reign continues through v. 16. Unlike the records of other Judean kings, the majority of the narrative on Manasseh is dedicated to his sins and abominations (2 Kgs 21:2–16). The remaining verses are the introductory and closing formula (2 Kgs 21:1, 17–18); no other events are described in the narrative.215 Such a description urges the reader to focus on the theological evaluation of Manasseh’s reign. Accordingly Manasseh is held personally responsible for the fall of Judah. The list of his sins is highly elaborated and indeed mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (2 Kgs 23:26–27; 24:3–4; Jer 15:4). This theological judgment depicts Manasseh as the apex of evil: he not only built the asherah and the idolatric altars, he also placed them in the temple.216 His religious reform is presented as the reversal of Hezekiah’s reform.217 He is cast as the antithesis of all just kings, such as Hezekiah, Josiah, David, and Solomon.218 Finally, his reign is compared to those of the northern kings (2 Kgs 21:3, 13; 23:27). Manasseh’s transgressions are carefully rendered in Deuteronomistic language calculated to

Zwickel 1990, 257–258. For the division of 2 Kgs 21:1–18 into four parts, in which vv. 2–9 represent the second part, see Stavrakopoulou 2004, 25. For another division of the text, see Sweeney 2001, 57. 216 Stavrakopoulou 2004, 37–38. 217 Keulen 1996, 95. 218 Lasine 1993, 163–164. 214 215

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

73

portray the king as a transgressor of the Mosaic law. In sum, Manasseh became the epitomy of the evil king who through his sins leads the nation into destruction and exile. The theological assessment of Manasseh’s reign functions like the theological homily in 2 Kgs 17. Just as the homily ends with the Lord’s irrevocable condemnation of Israel, the assessment of Manasseh’s reign is the occasion for the condemnation of Judah.220 After Manasseh’s reform, the kingdom of Judah was irreversibly doomed to destruction (cf. 2 Kgs 22:17–20; 23:26). The critical evaluation of Manasseh’s reign, however, points to some important facts that are often overlooked. First, the tradition ascribing to Manasseh responsibility for the fall of Judah developed over time, and this development can be partially traced in some Greek manuscripts. The Antiochian version of 4 Kgdms 24:4 reads “Jehoiakim” instead of “Manasseh.” In other words the Antiochian version blames the destruction of Judah on Jehoiakim and not on Manasseh.221 Second, both diachronic and synchronic analysis demonstrate that the theological assessment of Manasseh’s reign has been elaborated. Thus W. L. Schniedewind showed that postexilic redactors reshaped Manasseh’s account and created the links between him and Ahab.222 A. T. Ohm demonstrated that the narrative on Manasseh is closely related to other punishment narratives in Samuel–Kings. Developing this literary model, Ohm concluded that Manasseh’s and Josiah’s narratives together constitute a single punishment narrative.223 Finally, F. Stavrakopoulou’s reconstruction of the reign of the historical Manasseh showed that the king was “a successful monarch, who rebuilt the decimated kingdom he inherited into a flourishing state.”224 These points suggest that the tradition on Manasseh underwent some shifts. Manasseh was transformed from a successful politician into a villainous king. The biblical tradition censored and distorted the historical Manasseh. Such a distortion can be explained in two ways. First, Manasseh functioned as a scapegoat in the sense of R. Girard, most likely because of his northern name.225 Second, the vilification of Manasseh could have been caused by the fact that otherwise Hezekiah would have been blamed for the fall of Judah.226 Despite the distortions incorporated into the biblical portrait of Manasseh, scholars claim that some notes in the account may preserve historically reliable 219

219 Lowery 1991, 182–185. The picture of Manasseh differs in Chronicles, which relates that the king repented during his captivity in Babylon and thus prefigured Israel in exile (2 Chr 33:11–13); see Schniedewind 1991, 451–455. 220 Hoffmann 1980, 157. 221 Schniedewind 1991, 455–460; Halpern 1998, 505–508. 222 Schniedewind 1993, 660–661. See also Ben Zvi 1991. For the later tradition, see Himbaza 2006, 65–110. 223 Ohm 2010, 239–252. 224 Stavrakopoulou 2004, 119. For an archaeological assessment of the period corresponding to Manasseh’s reign, see Himbaza 2007 and Thareani-Sussely 2007, 74–75. 225 Stavrakopoulou 2004, 121–139. 226 Schipper 2010, 81–88.

74

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

information, in particular the statement that the king introduced foreign cult in Judah.227 In a similar tone, the biblical writers presented the reign of Amon, Manasseh’s son, as a direct continuation of the religious practices initiated by his father: “he did what was evil in the Lord’s sight, as his father Manasseh had done” (2 Kgs 21:20). Amon is not credited with introducing any new cultic practices. His faithful continuation of his father’s reform is underlined by a triple repetition of the term “his father” (2 Kgs 21:20, 21a, 21b). Changes in the temple furniture The cult introduced by Manasseh was materially expressed through three types of objects: high places, altars,228 and asherah(s). A few syntactical notes can be helpful in determining which cultic objects Manasseh introduced into the temple and which were used outside the temple. Scholars following different methodologies concur that 2 Kgs 21:3–7 is part of a larger block (21:2–9) and contains markers that justify the division of the passage into shorter units. M. Sweeney showed that we-qatal forms in vv. 4 and 6 mark the beginning of subunits in vv. 3, 4–5, 6–(8)9.229 A. Šanda and others argued that the second subunit (vv. 4–5) contains later additions, or information from a different source, and that the verses are permeated with Deuteronomistic language.230 These results suggest that the text is structured according to a pattern described by H.-D. Hoffmann.231 According to him, the passage alternates between reforms accomplished in unspecified locations and those carried out in Jerusalem or the temple: Illegitimate worship, without localization Altars built, in Jerusalem and in the temple Illegitimate practices, without localization Image of Asherah, in the temple

v. 3a vv. 4a, 5 v. 6a v. 7a

This structure is enriched by theological comments in vv. 3b, 4b, 6b, and 7b that lead up to a divine discourse (vv. 7c–9) and are framed by negative judgments (vv. 2, 9). The alternation between actions carried out in unspecified places and actions carried out in the temple makes clear which cultic objects the final redaction placed in the temple: altars (v. 4a), the altars for all the host of the heavens (v. 5), and the image of the asherah (v. 7a). The text mentions the altars of the temple 227 Keulen 1996, 212. For an example demonstrating how a certain cultic practice, namely child sacrifice, was first reevaluated and then distorted by later tradition, see Stavrakopoulou 2004, 141–316. 228 LXX has the singular form “altar.” Manasseh’s altar would have been in competition with the altar of the Lord (Schenker 2010, 7–8). 229 Sweeney 2007, 425. 230 Šanda 1912, 318; Gray 1976, 705. 231 Hoffmann 1980.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

75

twice. Following Sweeney’s proposal that the we-qatal form in v. 4a opens a new subunit, this verse can be taken as a short introductory summary (cf. Gen 18:1), and thus the altars referred to in vv. 4a and 5 are the same, i.e., the altars installed in the temple precincts. Thus Manasseh first placed altars in the temple building (v. 4a) and then other altars in the temple courts (v. 5).232 Furthermore, contrary to LXX, MT, by putting “asherah” in the singular (v. 3) and adding “which he made” in v. 7, suggests that Manasseh rebuilt the high places, the altars, and the asherah outside the temple. Then he brought this asherah into the temple. The LXX, rendering “asherah” in v. 3 as a plural, suggests that Manasseh rebuilt the high places, their altars, and their asherahs outside Jerusalem. The asherah he brought to the temple was a different one.233 Overall, the strong negative tone the scribes employed to evaluate Manasseh suggests that the account of his introduction of cultic objects into the temple must be taken with caution. Historiographical studies on Manasseh show that the historical Manasseh was a successful king who was later reinterpreted through different religious and political lenses. The biblical redactors wanted their audience to believe that one of Manasseh’s problematic deeds was the installation of illegitimate cultic objects in the temple; in other words, he changed the temple furniture. Two courts Besides the new altars erected in the temple (2 Kgs 21:4a), 2 Kgs 21:5 (cf. 2 Kgs 23:12) mentions altars ‫“ ִּב ְׁש ֵּתי ַח ְצרֹות ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬in (the) two courts of the temple of the Lord.” The form ‫ ְׁש ֵּתי‬is the dual construct of the feminine cardinal number ‫ׁש ַּתיִם‬. ְ The dual ‫ ְׁש ֵּתי ַח ְצרֹות‬can be translated as “two courts” or “both courts.”234 The former implies that the text referred to two courts out of many other courts that were in the temple area; the latter implies that there were only two courts in the temple area. The best candidates for “both courts” are the inner and outer courts mentioned in Ezek 10:3–5; otherwise we have to presume that the temple had at least three courts (cf. §3.7). Even though this note is located in the middle of the theological evaluation of Manasseh’s reign, it is not freighted with theological judgments as in the case of the altars and the asherah. Since the note describes something ancillary to the main interest of the biblical writers, we can deduce that the redactors of the book of Kings took for granted that in the late preexilic temple there stood at least two courts. If we read this note in light of the descriptions of the temple complex in Jeremiah (cf. §3.6.2) and Ezekiel (cf. §3.6.3), which also refer to different courts

232 For examples of small altars from Syria-Palestine, see Zwickel 1990, 110–137, 2007, 269–272; and Daviau 2007, 129–143. 233 M. Haran (1977, 281–285) took this idea one step further and concluded that Manasseh replaced the cherubim and the ark with the asherah. 234 Cf., for example, Gen 9:22; 31:57.

76

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

of the temple, then we have three different literary corpora that presumed that in the late preexilic temple there were at least two courts. Conclusion The text insists that Manasseh was responsible for a major reform that countered the one undertaken by Hezekiah. Manasseh’s reform consisted in bringing into the temple and its courts idolatric cultic objects: altars and asherah(s). This reform directly affected the temple furniture. The narrative also refers to two courts in the area of the temple, most likely the outer and inner courts. 3.5.3.3 Josiah’s Reform The reform to which the writers of Kings pay the most attention is that of Josiah. Since this reform has been the object of extensive studies, I will focus only on the points directly related to our topic.235 There are two passages describing Josiah’s intervention in the temple. The first section (2 Kgs 22:3–10) describes the repair of the dilapidated temple (cf. §3.2). From the narrative point of view, there are two plots woven into the text. The first is the endeavor to repair the dilapidated temple and the second is the unexpected discovery of the book of Torah. These interwoven plots serve as a narrative introduction to the most important part of Josiah’s reign: his religious reform (2 Kgs 23:1–24), which resulted in changes to the temple. Literary style of the account Before we move to the evaluation of 2 Kgs 23:4–24, which treats the architecture of the temple, a few words should be said on the literary style of this passage. Like the accounts of Hezekiah’s and Manasseh’s reforms, so too is the account of Josiah’s reform highly charged with theological language. Josiah is presented as the opposite of Manasseh, and the biblical writers even judged him far superior to Hezekiah, his precursor in reform. He is compared to David (2 Kgs 22:2) and to Moses (2 Kgs 23:25), whereas Hezekiah was compared only to David (2 Kgs 18:3). Several references to the Torah (2 Kgs 23:24–25) and to Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 22:2; cf. Deut 17:20), as well as two positive evaluations framing all his activities (2 Kgs 22:2; 23:25), indicate that the biblical writers put Josiah at the head of their list of good kings.236 He was the best of all the Judean kings and thus he was qualified to administer the most effective religious reform. In the case of Hezekiah and Manasseh, the account of the king’s religious reform is joined to the theological assessment of his reign, which in the book 235 The literature on Josiah’s reform is extremely large; studies that include excellent bibliographies include Claburn 1973; Laato 1992; Eynikel 1996; Sweeney 2001; Fried 2002; Kim 2005; Monroe 2011; Nicholson 2012; and Pietsch 2013. 236 Provan 1997, 270.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

77

of Kings typically starts with the formula ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ַהּיָ ָׁשר ְּב ֵעינֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬or its opposite. In Josiah’s case, however, the two passages on the reconstruction of the temple and its purification seem to belong to the main narrative of his reign, since they follow the theological assessment (2 Kgs 22:2). Although this seems to have been true of earlier redactions of 2 Kings,237 the final redactor rearranged the Josiah narrative in a different way, as indicated by the presence of the ‫ ָּכמֹהּו‬formula. The final form of 2 Kgs 22–23 contains several elements that determine its structure. Above all, the passage is framed by a regnal résumé (22:1; 23:28) and a theological assessment (22:2), after which comes the description of Josiah’s deeds. However, in 2 Kgs 23:25 there is a second positive evaluation of Josiah. The comparative expression ‫ ָּכמֹהּו‬appears elsewhere in Kings only in 2 Kgs 18:5, where it describes Hezekiah’s faithfulness to the Lord. In 2 Kgs 18 this expression has, beside others, also a structural function. The comparative formula ‫ָּכמֹהּו‬ marks the end of the theological assessment of King Hezekiah, which started in 2 Kgs 18:3.

Introductory regnal summary

Theological assessment Introductory stereotyped formula Religious reform Comparative formula (‫ )ּכמֹהּו‬ ָ

vv. 1–2 vv. 3–5 v. 3 v. 4 v. 5

A similar structural function of the comparative expression ‫ ָּכמֹהּו‬can be observed in 2 Kgs 22–23 as well (23:25). As in 2 Kgs 18, so also in 2 Kgs 22–23 this expression is connected with the stereotyped formula in 2 Kgs 22:2. It concludes Josiah’s religious reform (2 Kgs 22:3–23:24) and is followed by another theological note (2 Kgs 23:26–27). This indicates that the final redactor, by putting the comparative formula at the end of Josiah’s reign, perceived Josiah’s religious reform as part of the theological assessment of his reign and not as part of the regnal narrative proper, just as in the case of other kings (cf. Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18–20 and Joash in 2 Kgs 12). This leads us to conclude that the account of Josiah’s reform, including the changes in the temple, is part of a long theological assessment, as it was in the case of Hezekiah and Manasseh. Besides the expression ‫ּכמֹהּו‬, ָ the final text of 2 Kgs 22–23 contains several elements helping the reader to break the text into smaller units. The first structural markers are expressions containing ‫( וַ יְ ִהי‬‭22:3, 11). These temporal markers divide the text into two parts. The first part of the text describes the repair of the temple and the discovery of the book (22:3–10), while the second part (22:11–23:24)238 describes Josiah’s reaction to what he heard in the book: he first inquired about the book through the prophetess Huldah (22:11–20), then concluded a covenant (23:1–3), and subsequently commenced the religious reform (23:4–24). The reEynikel 1996, 351–353. It has been proposed that 2 Kgs 22:11 should be understood as the conclusion of the first part; see Pietsch 2010, 72–73. 237 238

78

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

form itself was of large extent: it affected the temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and its vicinity, the territory of Judah, and to its north Bethel and Samaria. The description of the cleansing of the temple of Jerusalem follows the same alternation of unspecified and specific locations as in the case of Manasseh’s reform (cf. §3.5.3.2), which further buttresses the idea that the final form of the text was shaped to contrast Josiah’s reform with that of Manasseh.239 Manasseh’s reform (2 Kgs 21)

Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 23) Vessels brought out from the temple (v. 4)

Illegitimate worship, without localization (v. 3a)

Destruction of idolatric practices, without localization (v. 5)

Altars built in Jerusalem and its temple (vv. 4a, 5)

Asherah and other idols brought out from the temple (vv. 6–7)

Illegitimate practices, without localization (v. 6a)

End of idolatry in Judah (vv. 8–10)

Image of Asherah, in the temple (v. 7a)

Idolatric objects brought out from the temple (2 Kgs 23:11–12)

This structuring of the narrative also emphasizes that the whole temple was completely cleansed. The cleansing of the temple proceeded from the temple building outwards: it extended from the hekal to the courts, and even to the structures adjacent to the temple (i.e., the gardens; cf. 2 Kgs 25:4). The objects removed were of different types: asherah, vessels, altars, other cultic objects, and houses. The vessels used for Baal, Asherah, and the whole host of heaven were inside the temple, in the hekal (2 Kgs 23:4).240 The altars and the asherah241 were most likely in the temple building as well;242 the horses243 and 239 In my analysis of 2 Kgs 23:5, I disagree with E. Eynikel (1996, 151–154), who thinks that v. 5 refers to the temple, without taking into consideration that the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem are explicitly mentioned in the same verse. Moreover, from the current form of the text it is impossible to conclude that v. 6 refers to the temple building and not to the temple complex, as Eynikel suggests. 240 Probably smaller vessels, such as those mentioned in 1 Kgs 7:41–50. 241 The distinction between the goddess Asherah and the cultic object asherah must be placed in the context of the historical development of Israelite religion. The wooden object representing the goddess Asherah was also called an asherah. The wooden asherah gradually became dissociated from the goddess Asherah, and in the late period it became a sacred tree (Hadley 2000, 77–83). See also Day 1986; Park 2010. 242 Cf. 2 Kgs 21:4, 6; 23:4. The general expression “in the house” can be explained as “in the temple building” or “in the temple complex.” In 2 Kgs 21:4, 6; 23:4 the former is most likely because in other cases the authors specified where the altars were placed, such as in the two courts of the temple (2 Kgs 21:5; 23:12) or on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz (2 Kgs 23:12). 243 The horses should be construed as a cultic object; see Gray 1976, 736.

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

79

the chariots dedicated to the sun as well as other altars were in the structures adjacent to the temple. Moreover, the structure of the passage implies that not only idolatric objects but also the edifices of the idolatric personnel were destroyed. The high number of cultic objects listed and the destruction of the houses of the idolatric cult personnel lead the reader to the conclusion that Josiah completely cleansed the temple of idolatry.244 Houses, chambers, and gardens Whereas the removal of the cultic objects, even though important for the purity of the cult, affected above all the furnishings of the temple area, the biblical account mentions other elements of the architecture of the temple important for our study. The first of these elements appears in 2 Kgs 23:7: ‫ת־ּב ֵּתי ַה ְּק ֵד ִׁשים ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ָ ‫וַ ּיִ ּתֹץ ֶא‬ ‫“ ְּב ֵבית יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ַהּנָ ִׁשים א ְֹרגֹות ָׁשם ָּב ִּתים ָל ֲא ֵׁש ָרה‬He (Josiah) tore down the houses of the holies245 that (were) in the temple of the Lord, where the women wove houses246 for the asherah.” The literal translation brings forward problems that must be subjected to further analysis. In the phrase “He tore down the houses,” all Greek manuscripts have the singular “the house,” contrary to the plural “the houses” in MT. According to LXX there was one building; according to MT, there were multiple edifices. As a result, one can speak of a structure or a compound.247 P. A. Bird proved that this structure was not a residence for cloistered single women, but rather a work area.248 All manuscripts locate this structure/ compound in the temple (‫א ֶׁשר ְּב ֵבית יְ הוָ ה‬, ֲ τῶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ κυρίου). Whereas MT is ambiguous – the relative pronoun can relate either to “the holies” or to “the houses” – LXX’s plural relative pronoun refers to the καδησιμ “holies”: “the house of the holies who were (working) in the house of the Lord.” Consequently, the location of the structure/compound can be determined only indirectly from the context. Second Kings 23:6–7 deals with the asherah and with the temple, whereas vv. 5 and 8 deal with the high places; therefore it is logical to read vv.

244 After Josiah’s reform, the temple remained empty; this suggests that the temple was replaced by the scroll found in the temple (Sonnet 1994, 857–859; Römer 2003, 76–77). 245 It is difficult to determine whether we can speak about cult prostitution in this case. E. Lipiński (2014, 53–56) examined the question of cult prostitution and gathered archaeological evidence on the chambers the cult prostitutes used at Pyrgi as well as other sites. N. Na’aman (1996, 18) revocalized the text, concluding that the translation should be “dedicated treasures buildings [sic].” 246 For various interpretations of the term ‫ּב ִּתים‬, ָ see Montgomery 1951; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 286; Eynikel 1996, 137; and Hadley 2000, 74. 247 Another proposal was to interpret the plural collectively as “the quarters” (Hobbs 1985, 333). 248 Bird 1997, 69.

80

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

6–7 as a unit referring to the temple cleansing. Therefore, as most exegetes have suggested, the structure/compound should be located in the temple precincts.249 As for the function of this structure/compound, it housed cult personnel, interpreted as male cult prostitutes,250 as well as women weaving for the asherah. Despite the textual problems, the passage suggests that in the late preexilic period a complex body of cultic personnel – male and female – worked for the temple and had at their disposal a building or a compound located in the temple area. This idea is not extraneous to the ancient Near Eastern mentality. On the contrary, temples, including the temples of Syria-Palestine, achieved prosperity through the development of entire industries housed in the buildings of temple courts.251 A further cluster of architectural elements related to the temple emerges from an analysis of 2 Kgs 23:11. Most scholarship on the verse has been concerned with the horses and the sun cult.252 I will focus on three architectural elements pertinent for this study: ‫ן־מ ֶלְך ַה ָּס ִריס ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ַּפ ְרוָ ִרים‬ ֶ ‫ל־ל ְׁש ַּכת נְ ַת‬ ִ ‫“ ִמּבֹא ֵבית־יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬at the entrance of the temple of the Lord, by the chamber of Nathan-melech, the eunuch, which was in the parwarim.” The translation of the first term, ‫ִמּבֹא ֵבית־‬ ‫“ יְ הוָ ה‬at the entrance of the temple of the Lord,” presupposes a change in vocalization from ‫“ ִמּבֹא‬from coming” (a preposition followed by the infinitive construct) to ‫“ ְמּבֹא‬at the entrance” (a noun in the construct form), as in LXX (ἐν τῇ εἰσόδῳ οἴκου κυρίου). The noun ‫ ָמבֹוא‬can refer to an entrance to the temple area (cf. §3.6.2). Following this interpretation, the chamber of Nathan-melech was located at an entrance to the temple area, similar to the chambers mentioned in Jer 35:1–4 and 36:10.253 The phrase further specifying the location, ‫“ ַּב ַּפ ְרוָ ִרים‬in the parwarim,” contains a hapax legomenon. If taken as a loan word from Persian frabar, then parwarim refers to the temple precincts.254 The last two architectural elements appear in 2 Kgs 23:12 and 25:4. The former verse reports on the removal of altars from the temple-palace area: ‫ת־ה ִּמזְ ְּבחֹות‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫הּודה‬ ָ ְ‫ר־עׂשּו ַמ ְל ֵכי י‬ ָ ‫ל־הּגָ ג ֲע ִלּיַת ָא ָחז ֲא ֶׁש‬ ַ ‫(“ ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬Josiah removed) the altars that were upon the roof of the upper room of Ahaz that the kings of Judah had made.” The preposition ‫ ַעל‬is rightly interpreted as “upon, on” and therefore ‫ל־הּגָ ג‬ ַ ‫ ַע‬is often translated as “on the roof of.” The practice of burning incense on roofs, presumably upon incense altars, occurs in texts referring to the late preexilic period (cf. Jer Of the commentaries consulted on this passage, only J. R. Lumby (1909, 234) suggested that the houses were located in the temple building, but his proposal has not been followed by other scholars. 250 Stipp 2009, 357–390; Lipiński 2014, 48–56. 251 Stager and Wolff 1981; Zawadzki 2006. 252 Keel 2002. 253 The preposition ‫ ֶאל‬usually means “toward” or “against” (equivalent to ‫)על‬, ַ in which case the translation would be “at the entrance of the temple of the Lord, (which was located) in the direction of / opposite the chamber of Nathan-melech.” 254 The term remains unclear and the Persian etymology has rightly been contested (Montgomery 1951, 539–540; Lipiński 1975, 156–157; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 289–290). 249

81

3.5 Religious Reforms in Judah and the First Temple

19:13; 32:29). Rooftop altars were not uncommon in ancient Israel. The expression ‫ ֲע ִלּיַת ָא ָחז‬can be interpreted as the upper room or the sundial that Ahaz built.256 Verse 25:4 mentions “the king’s garden.” The gardens of Jerusalem are not otherwise known. D. Ussishkin suggested that they might have been an imitation of the royal parks in Nineveh.257 This short analysis suggests that according to the biblical authors, Josiah removed the altars that stood on the upper part of an edifice located in the temple-palace complex that also had a garden (cf. 2 Kgs 25:4). As demonstrated above, the description of Josiah’s reform was crafted as a strong theological statement. If we look behind the religious rhetoric, however, the description of the temple that forms the background of Josiah’s reform presupposes that the Temple Mount was a highly developed area in which the temple and the palace together created one large urban complex. If we compare the image of the temple complex in 2 Kgs 22–23 with the information provided by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (cf. §§3.6.2, 3.6.3), then we can conclude that the biblical writers imagined the late preexilic temple as a highly developed area with numerous buildings and courts. 255

3.5.3.4 Conclusion The previous sections showed that the accounts of three reformers – Hezekiah, Manasseh (followed by his son Amon), and Josiah – in 2 Kings should be read together as a trilogy.258 Their common focus is on the religious reforms of the kings, which in each case formed part of the theological assessment of that king. The following chart compares the impact of the three reforms upon the temple. Removed by Hezekiah

Added by Manasseh

Removed by Josiah

asherah (?)

asherah

asherah

altars

altars cult vessels houses of cultic personnel

neḥuštan (?)

cult objects (horses, chariots)

255 For an archaeological example from Ashkelon dated before the Babylonian invasion, see King and Stager 2001, 345. 256 Iwry 1957, 27–33; Eynikel 1996, 254. 257 Ussishkin 1995, 290–307. Recent excavations have brought to light exotic gardens at Ramat Rachel, about five kilometers south of Jerusalem. The gardens originated in the seventh century BCE, but their expansion reached its peak in the Persian period (Lipschits, Gadot, and Langgut 2012, 67–68, 71–73). This archaeological discovery confirms that the idea of royal gardens was not foreign to Judah in the late preexilic and postexilic period. 258 Hoffmann 1980, 162–165. The reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah on the one hand, and on the other hand the counter-reforms of Manasseh and Amon can from a sociological point of view be categorized as historical expressions of the normal tension between centralized and noncentralized models of sacred space (Kunin 1998, 27–30).

82

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

As mentioned above, we can safely conclude that according to the Bible, Manasseh’s and Josiah’s reforms extended to the temple furniture. That Hezekiah removed the neḥuštan and the asherah from the temple must remain a hypothesis. The most important part of these reforms was the movement of cultic objects into or out of the temple. The introduction of cultic objects associated with the divine triad of Asherah, Baal, and the Heavenly Hosts altered the furnishings of the temple and consequently the content of the cult.259 The table above also shows that only King Josiah changed the layout of the temple complex, by demolishing the houses of the cult personnel. Even though the goal of 2 Kgs 22–23 was to glorify Josiah’s religious reform, the architectural landscape of the Temple Mount is revealed in the details of the narrative. The temple area in this account included a structure or compound that housed male cultic personnel and was shared by the women weaving for the asherah. In addition, this structure was situated in the parwarim, probably a sort of temple precinct, which had an entrance, a chamber belonging to Nathan-melech. To the temple area were attached royal gardens and other edifices built by Josiah’s predecessors. In sum, the late preexilic temple was intrinsically connected with the palace, and the whole complex represented the best of Judean architecture. A similar image of the temple emerges from the analysis of some chapters of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (§§3.6.2, 3.6.3).

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes In this section I will study notes scattered in various parts of the Bible that mention the preexilic temple and its architecture. First, I will glean information about the gates of the temple from Kings and then from the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 3.6.1 Temple and Palace Gates in the Book of Kings Most gates mentioned in Kings refer to the city gates (cf. 1 Kgs 22:10). Gates of the temple and the royal palace are mentioned in the accounts of the reigns of Joash (2 Kgs 11) and Jotham (2 Kgs 15).

259 In recent years scholars have dedicated a lot of effort to both demonstrating and challenging the legitimacy of these cultic practices and their origin; besides the writings already mentioned, see, for example, Buren 1955; Stähli 1985; Pettey 1990; Emerton 1999; Becking and Dijkstra 2001; Smith 2001, 2008; Kratz and Spieckermann 2006, 2010; and Lemaire 2012. Even though we are far from reaching a consensus on this point, I concur with I. W. Provan (1997, 267) that the cultic objects introduced to the temple and its adjacent structures had the effect of making Yhwh one god among many other divinities; he probably also had a consort, Asherah.

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

83

Temple and palace gates in the time of Jehoiada and Joash The first group of gates mentioned in Kings refers to the palace-temple complex: ‫“ ַׁש ַער סּור‬the gate Sur” and ‫“ ַׁש ַער ַא ַחר ָה ָר ִצים‬the gate behind the guards” (2 Kgs 11:6260). Jehoiada, in order to bring his coup d’état to its successful end, needed to secure two gates that connected the royal palace with the temple.261 The difficulty of coordinating the gates in 2 Kgs 11:6, 19 with other temple gates has generated several proposals. First, ‫“ ַׁש ַער סּור‬the gate Sur” has often been identified with “the gate of horses” mentioned in Jer 31:40 and Neh 3:28.262 This interpretation has two problems: first, “the gate of horses” is a city gate and not a temple gate; second, in 2 Kgs 11 both Joash and Athaliah head to the palace, but by two different gates. N. Na’aman proposed an original solution to this problem by positing two palaces in Jerusalem: a Davidic palace and a Solomonic palace. Athaliah was led through “the gate of horses” to the Davidic palace, whereas Joash entered the Solomonic palace through “the gate of the runners,” interpreted by Na’aman as the “gate of guards.”263 Despite the unresolved questions, 2 Kgs 11 affirms that there were two gates in the temple-palace complex through which the palace personnel could access the temple. Though this note is in the temple stratum of 2 Kgs 11, which dates to a later period, it was composed prior to Chronicles (cf. §3.5.1). Jotham’s gate Second Kings 15:35 is the only verse in Kings that explicitly mentions a temple gate: ‫“ ַׁש ַער ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ָה ֶע ְליֹון‬the upper gate of the temple.”264 The importance of this note for our study lies not only in its content but also in its literary context. Jotham’s reign (759–743 BCE) is described by means of stereotyped formulas and two insertions (italicized) describing the actions attributed to Jotham (2 Kgs 15:32–38).

260 Referred to in 2 Kgs 11:19 as “the gate of the guards” ‫ׁש ַער ָה ָר ִצים‬. ַ For an excellent bibliography on gates in the Hebrew Bible, see Otto 2006, 15:359–364. 261 Busink 1970, 149. 262 Stager 1982, 118. 263 Na’aman 2012, 94–95. 264 S. Yeivin’s (1964, 334–338) proposal that the upper gate was in fact the gate to the temple porch remains too hypothetical, and as far as I know it has not been taken up in the scholarly literature.

84

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

Introductory regnal summary

In the second year of King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel, King Jotham son of Uzziah of Judah began to reign. 33 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok. 34 He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, just as his father Uzziah had done. 35a Nevertheless the high places were not removed; the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places.

Insertion 1

35b

Concluding regnal summary

Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?

Insertion 2

37

Concluding regnal summary resumed

38 Jotham slept with his ancestors, and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David, his ancestor; his son Ahaz succeeded him.

32

He built the upper gate of the house of the Lord.

36

In those days the Lord began to send King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.

From these two insertions the reader learns that Jotham built the upper gate of the temple and that during his reign Rezin and Pekah started to harass Judah in an attempt to create an anti-Assyrian block (cf. §3.5.2). The note on the gate (‫הּוא ָּבנָ ה‬ ‫ת־ׁש ַער ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ָה ֶע ְליֹון‬ ַ ‫)א‬ ֶ is written in typical annalistic style and shows no indication that it was influenced by the authors’ or redactors’ evaluation of Jotham’s orthodoxy.265 Since this note does not bear traces of theologically charged vocabulary, Deuteronomistic or otherwise, there is no reason to date this note to the postexilic period and most scholars think that it came from the royal annals.266 The content of this note is also clear: “He (Jotham) built267 the upper268 gate of the temple of the Lord.” A. Lemaire dedicated to this verse a brief but important article. Following other scholars he concluded that the adjective ‫ָה ֶע ְליֹון‬ refers to the Upper Gate of Benjamin269 situated on the north side of the temple (cf. Jer 20:2; Ezek 8:14; 9:2). The construction of this chambered gate required breaching the northern wall of the temple-palace complex and resulted in the fortification of the weakest point of Jerusalem. In contrast to the previous temple gates, which communicated directly with the royal palace, this gate made the temple accessible to the public by eliminating the detour through the royal palace. Lemaire concluded that the construction of the new gate, together with Ahaz’s introduction of a new altar, meant that the temple “was no longer a meetSee the elaboration of Jotham’s building activities in 2 Chr 27 (Williamson 1982, 341). Gray 1976, 634; Würthwein 1984, 385. 267 The term ‫ ָּבנָ ה‬can be translated as “he built” (most modern translations) or “he rebuilt” (NIV, not followed by others). 268 All occurrences of the adjective ‫ ֶע ְליֹון‬with the article refer to an object – “the upper gate” – and not to God the Highest (‫)אל ֶע ְליֹון‬. ֵ 269 In Jer 37:13 and 38:7, however, the Benjamin Gate is the city gate. 265 266

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

85

ing place for the king, his family, and his officers; from now on it was possible for any Judahite coming from outside the city to enter the sanctuary.”270 Jotham’s gate was the first step in the transformation of the royal temple into a “national shrine” now accessible through the new gate. 3.6.2 The Temple Complex in Jeremiah Jeremiah was the preexilic prophet probably most intimately connected with the temple. A large part of his activity took place there; he visited the temple often and he even had access to the rooms and offices reserved for temple personnel. No wonder that the temple, its cult, and its personnel were high on his agenda and often exposed to his severe critique (cf. Jer 7:4).271 The various references in the book of Jeremiah to the temple-palace complex make it clear that Jeremiah knew a Temple Mount characterized by a high level of urban development. The royal palace had several courts, including the court of the guards, which served as the place of Jeremiah’s confinement (Jer 32:2, 12; 33:1; 37:21; 38:6, 13, 28; 39:14–15), and another unspecified palace court (Jer 36:20). The temple was closely connected with the palace, as numerous references illustrate (cf. Jer 26:10). Even though Jeremiah delivered several oracles at various city gates (Jer 17:19; 19:1–2; 22:1–2), the temple constituted one of the most important settings for his oracles. Thus he appeared in the temple court (Jer 19:14–15; 26:2) or more generally in the temple (Jer 28:1; 36:5–6). Besides manifesting his love for the temple,272 Jeremiah’s appearances at the courts or in the gates gave him an opportunity to interact with day-to-day visitors or, on special occasions, with the people at large.273 Since the book of Jeremiah refers to a sophisticated structure of courts, gates, and chambers in the temple area, the following paragraphs will be dedicated to its representation of the temple complex.274 Gates The first distinctive feature of the temple in the book of Jeremiah is its system of gates. Jeremiah distinguished the city gates275 from the palace gates276 and the temple gates. The book refers to three temple gates as well as a “third entrance” (Jer 38:14).

Lemaire 2011, 197. Bogaert 2003, 209–212; Tiemeyer 2009, 257–262; Lopasso 2010, 18–20. 272 Lopasso 2010, 25–26. 273 Lundbom 1999, 845. 274 To the best of my knowledge, there is no single study devoted to the temple complex in the book of Jeremiah; commentaries and other studies offer only marginal notes on the temple complex. 275 Jer 1:15; 14:2; 17:19–27; 19:2; 22:19; 31:38, 40; 37:13; 38:7; 39:3.4; 51:58. 276 Jer 22:2, 4. 270 271

86

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

The first temple gate is mentioned in Jer 7:2. The gate is not specified further and is called simply ‫“ ַׁש ַער ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬the gate of the temple of the Lord.” The similarities with Jer 26277 and the fact that there was no need for any further description suggest that it was a main temple gate.278 The second half of Jer 7:2 mentions “these gates,” which were used by people entering the temple complex to worship the Lord. The second temple gate mentioned in Jeremiah is called ‫יָמן ָה ֶע ְליֹון ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ִ ְ‫ַׁש ַער ִּבנ‬ ‫“ ְּב ֵבית יְ הוָ ה‬the upper Benjamin gate, which was in the temple of the Lord” (Jer 20:2). Since this gate and the gate built by Jotham are referred to with the same qualifier (‫“ ָה ֶע ְליֹון‬the upper”), most scholars conclude that they were identical.279 The association of the temple gate with ‫יָמן‬ ִ ְ‫ ִּבנ‬implies that this gate was oriented towards the territory of Benjamin, i.e., to the north or northeast, but it should be distinguished from the city gate that is also called the “gate of Benjamin” (Jer 37:13). Thus the upper Benjamin gate was a temple gate and the (lower) Benjamin gate was a city gate.280 This distinction is underlined by the subordinate clause “which was in the temple” (20:2); usually a simple construct phrase is sufficient to identify a gate. This temple gate had to be rather large as it served as a place of confinement281 for the prophet Jeremiah. Most likely it was a typical Iron Age gate with chambers, as Jotham’s gate would have been (cf. §3.6.1). The third temple gate mentioned in Jeremiah is called ‫“ ַׁש ַער ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ֶה ָח ָדׁש‬the new gate of the temple of the Lord” (Jer 36:10). In MT Jer 26:10 the word ‫ֵּבית־‬ is missing, but it is added in other manuscripts. If this emendation is accepted, both verses refer to the same gate. Jeremiah 36:10 specifies that the gate led to the upper court of the temple and that the chamber of Gemariah was next to it. In both cases a major gathering used to take place at the entry of the gate (‫ֶּפ ַתח‬ ‫)ׁש ַער‬. ַ Probably it was an open-air space where judicial proceedings could be held (cf. Amos 5:10–15).282 Several possible identifications of the new gate have been advanced: the new gate was the eastern gate mentioned in Ezek 10:19 and 11:1, or the gate was called “new” because Jotham built it or Hezekiah rebuilt it after Sennacherib’s invasion.283 The most likely proposal is to locate the gate on the western side of the temple precincts, where it would have served the growing settlement on the western slope.284 An identification of this gate with Jotham’s gate is less plausible since Jotham’s gate would then have three names: “the upKragelund 1986, 74–85. It has been proposed that this gate was an eastern gate leading to the inner court; see Lundbom 2004a, 286. 279 Carroll 1986, 390; Lundbom 1999, 847. 280 Holladay 1986, 543. 281 McKane 1986, 460. 282 Holladay 1989, 106. 283 For various options and bibliography, see Holladay 1989, 107; McKane 1996, 663–664; and Lopasso 2010, 19. 284 Zwickel 1990, 239–240. 277 278

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

87

per gate,” “the upper Benjamin gate,” and “the new gate.” Rashi’s proposal that the gate was rebuilt after Sennacherib’s invasion is also improbable, since there is no evidence that Sennacherib ever destroyed the walls or gates of Jerusalem. The most likely solution is that this was another gate built sometime before the fall of Judah, and therefore it was called “the new gate.” To summarize, the book of Jeremiah refers to multiple gates (cf. the plural in Jer 7:2). “The upper Benjamin gate” can be identified with that built by Jotham. Besides this gate, there was “the new gate.” “The gate of the temple” might refer to one of these two gates or it could have been a main gate/entrance to the temple. The contexts in which the temple gates appear in the book of Jeremiah suggest that they had a social function similar to that of city gates: the people gathered around them (Jer 36:10), prophets proclaimed divine oracles in the temple gates (Jer 7:2), important decisions were made there (Jer 26:10), and a gate could even serve as a prison (Jer 20:2).285 The social function of the temple gates is another indicator that in a certain period the temple was a public meeting place. Chambers Jeremiah 35:1–4 reveals a sophisticated structure of chambers joined to the temple.286 In Jer 35:2 the Lord commanded Jeremiah to bring Rechabites to one of the chambers.287 Verse 4 mentions three chambers belonging respectively to the sons of Hanan,288 the princes, and Maaseiah. These details suggest that the compound had at least three chambers and two floors.289 Since one of the chambers mentioned in Jer 35:4 belonged to Maaseiah, who was the keeper of the 285 Cf., for example, Ruth 4 as well as 1 Sam 4:18; 2 Sam 3:27; 18:24; 19:9; 1 Kgs 22:10; and Isa 29:21. For a list of functions of the gates, see Otto 2006, 15:392–403. 286 Galling 1931. 287 Several exegetes connected the chambers mentioned in Jer 35 with the surrounding structure in 1 Kgs 6:5–6 and concluded that these chambers were “living and working areas for priests in charge of the Temple (Ezek 40:45), priests in charge of the altar (Ezek 40:46), singers (1 Chr 9:33), stewards (2 Kgs 23:11), and Temple doorkeepers (Jer 35:4; 1 Chr 9:26-27). One chamber was apparently set aside for the princes (Jer 35:4). Some chambers were storage facilities for Temple vessels and other treasures, for frankincense, cereal offerings, and incoming tithes (1 Chr 28:12; 2 Chr 31:11–12), the latter consisting of fruit, grain, wine, and oil (Neh 10:38–40; 13:4–9)” (Lundbom 2004a, 574). For similar proposals, see McKane 1996, 897; Lopasso 2010, 20. This proposal is, however, difficult to accept since the authors assemble texts from various periods and do not take into consideration that the temple chambers might have changed. In particular, it is difficult to use Nehemiah, which reflects the postexilic temple complex, to reconstruct the preexilic temple complex. 288 It might have been a larger room serving as the meeting place for a prophetic school, the disciples of Hanan (Kellerman 1997, 8:35). 289 The layout of the compound depends on the interpretation of the expression ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ִמ ַּמ ַעל‬ ‫ל ִל ְׁש ַּכת‬,ְ which can refer to either the first or the second chamber. If it refers to the first chamber, then the first chamber was on the second floor and the second was on the first floor. If this subordinate clause refers to the second chamber, then the second chamber was on the second floor.

88

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

threshold, it makes sense to conclude that the chambers were in the temple court, probably next to one of the gates.290 Consequently, the term ‫ ֵּבית יְ הוָ ה‬in Jer 35:4 is to be understood as the temple complex, not the temple building itself. The temple complex and its buildings, courts, palaces, and chambers provide the narrative background for one of the most impressive stories in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 36). Jeremiah asked Baruch to write down the words he was dictating and to read them in the temple. Baruch read the scroll on a day of fasting, when people from other cities came to Jerusalem. The reading took place in the chamber of Gemariah, who was the temple scribe (v. 10). The chamber was located in the upper court next to the new gate. Baruch’s reading was reported to the nobility gathered in the chamber of the king’s scribe Elishama (vv. 12, 21). Finally, the nobility reported to King Jehoiakim, who was in the palace court at that moment (v. 20). The scroll was read to the king in his winter house (v. 22). The urban background of this episode includes some elements important for our topic. First, next to the new gate was another chamber, different from those mentioned in Jer 35:4.291 Second, we can distinguish three areas in the temple-palace complex: the temple area, including the upper court, the new gate, and the chamber of Gemariah;292 the king’s area, with its court and winter palace; and finally the area of the nobility, situated between the previous two areas. These edifices point to a well-developed temple-palace complex with numerous rooms and buildings, some of them belonging to members of the highest tier of Judean society.293 Courts The next important feature of the temple in the book of Jeremiah is its set of courts. The book mentions two palace courts294 and two temple courts. The first reference to the temple court is very general: ‫“ ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬the court of the temple of the Lord” (Jer 19:14; 26:2). The similarities between Jer 7 and 26 mentioned above suggest that the general expressions “the gate of the temple of the Lord” and “the court of the temple of the Lord” designated the main court of the temple and its main gate.295 See, for example, Armstrong 1996, 49. This chamber belonged to the palace complex but was different from the royal palace. 292 Since Gemariah was a scribe (his seal has been unearthed), “it is reasonable that a chamber belonging to him would contain stored documents” (Lundbom 2004a, 598).This chamber belonged to the palace complex but was different from the royal palace. 293 Some of the buildings could have been official state buildings, distinguished by their access both to the temple outer court and to the palace court (Kellerman 1997, 8:35). 294 ‫“ ֲח ַצר ַה ַּמ ָּט ָרה‬the court of the guards” (Jer 32:2, 8, 12; 33:1; 37:21; 38:6, 13, 28), and a general term with the directional suffix ‫ה‬-, ‫“ ָח ֵצ ָרה‬the court” (Jer 36:20). 295 H. G. Reventlow (1969, 327–328) compared the temple courts as described in Kings and Jer 7 and concluded that it is difficult to assume that the temple courts remained the same. For example, the court mentioned in 2 Kgs 21:5, possibly the second court, is identical with the 290 291

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

89

Besides the main court, the book of Jeremiah mentions “the upper court” (Jer 36:10). The biblical texts do not specify its location. We learn only that the upper court had a gate called “the new gate,” to which the chamber of Gemariah was attached.296 Conclusion The temple became Jeremiah’s favorite meeting place. The book of Jeremiah refers to it with three terms: “the place” (Jer 7),297 “the house” (28:1), and “the hekal” (7:4298). The palace-temple complex formed the urban background for most of Jeremiah’s speeches and activities, which incorporate motifs drawn from large-scale temple gatherings in the courts and gates and more intimate meetings in the temple chambers.299 All these meetings and discussions took place in three parts of the temple: in the gates, the courts, and the chambers. We must note that most scholars have recognized the hypothetical status of any attempt to harmonize the architectural elements in the book of Jeremiah with those mentioned in other biblical texts. This difficulty requires that the temple complex as depicted in the book of Jeremiah be reconstructed independently, at least to some degree, of other sources, and I present the reconstruction in minimalist and maximalist versions. The minimalist position would be to assume that shortly before the fall of Judah there were at least two gates leading to one or two temple courts. The temple courts had several chambers. The maximalist position would be to assume that the book of Jeremiah refers to three gates, three entrances (possibly connected with some of the gates), two courts, and four chambers in the temple complex. “The gate,” i.e., the main gate, led to “the court,” i.e., the main court, where public gatherings took place. “The upper Benjamin gate” can be identified with the gate built by King Jotham; it was similar to typical Iron Age gates and contained multiple rooms, and it was oriented towards the territory of Benjamin.300 On the basis of the information provided in the biblical text it is impossible to connect this gate with either of the two courts with any certainty. The third gate, also called “the new gate,” led to the upper court of the temple. A chamber belonging to the scribe Gemariah was attached to this gate. In addition to this chamber, in middle court in 2 Kgs 20:4 (qere reading). The inner court in 1 Kgs 6:36 might have been the same as the upper court in Jer 36:10. 296 Since 1 Kgs 6:36 mentions only “the inner court,” some scholars think that the inner court was the central court, and because it was the most elevated court of the temple it was also called the upper court (Hamp 1986, 5:135). However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis. 297 For a study of the term ‫“ ָמקֹום‬place,” see Leuchter 2005. 298 This exclamatory formula may represent a fusion of Isa 6:3 and 1 Sam 1:9; 3:3, where the shrine in Shiloh is called also the hekal (Holladay 1986, 242). 299 Carroll 1986, 659. 300 For a reconstruction of a similar gate in Jerusalem, see Avigad 1983, 50.

90

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

one of the temple courts there were three other chambers belonging to the sons of Hanan, to the princes, and to Maaseiah. According to the maximalist position, the temple complex was connected with the palace complex, which was divided into two areas: one reserved for the king, including the court and the winter house, and the other for the royal officials, containing the chamber of the royal scribe Elishama and “the gate of the guards.” Since the architectural pattern of a palace-temple complex surrounded by several buildings, gates, and courts is well known from other archaeological sites, the maximalist proposal is supported by broader trends in the ancient Levant. Whichever proposal we appropriate, it is important to notice that the architectural elements in the book of Jeremiah do not correspond to the architectural elements described in 1 Kgs 6–8, since 1 Kgs 6:38 mentions an inner court but not an upper court, and moreover no chambers or temple gates are described in 1 Kgs 6–8. Another important conclusion is that the book of Jeremiah imagines the temple complex as a public space to which not only the priests but also the people had access. The people went there for daily worship as well as on special occasions. Such traffic in the temple presupposes that the temple functioned as a national shrine. To conduct the regular temple services and organize special feasts, the temple needed a sufficient number of servants and officials, who were organized in a hierarchical structure. Thanks to the accessibility of the temple to all, Jeremiah was able to address a large public as well as the temple officials. The concept of the temple as a place that people visited for daily worship as well as on special occasions corresponds to that of Isa 1:11–15.301 3.6.3 The Temple Complex in Ezekiel The book of Ezekiel contains two sections that mention several architectural elements in and around the temple. The first section, called the Temple Vision, describes Ezekiel’s vision of the abominable acts that ultimately caused the Lord to abandon the temple (Ezek 8–11). In the second section, the book of Ezekiel describes the new temple and the new Jerusalem (Ezek 40–48).302 Despite several claims that the latter also reflects the preexilic layout of the temple,303 it is difficult to make use of the details of this vision for the purposes of this study.304 The temple described in Ezek 40–48 partially reflects the preexilic temple, but in its final form, it is impossible to distinguish which parts of the temple reflect the preexilic temple and which parts belong to Ezekiel’s vision of a new, ideal Zwickel 1990, 185–188. For the connection between the two visions and the poetics of sacred space, see Mills 2012, 72–94. 303 See, for example, Howie 1950a, 43–46, and Zwickel 1999, 181–182. 304 For the theological concepts that shaped the plan of Ezekiel’s temple, see Konkel 2002, 159–161. 301 302

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

91

temple. The Temple Vision (Ezek 8‒11) is better suited to our purposes. The goal of this vision was not to describe the ideal temple; rather, the temple served as the narrative setting for a theological explanation of why God abandoned it. The text does not systematically describe the temple, but rather the mystical journey of the prophet. As suggested by W. Zimmerli, the account of Ezekiel’s tour of the temple contains several details that could have been verified by anyone in Jerusalem.306 Moreover, whereas chapters 40–48 are generally ascribed to the postexilic period, it is almost generally agreed that the Temple Vision reflects the preexilic formation of the book, with a few additions.307 In the Temple Vision a reader can discern several gates, courts, and rooms that will be the subject of the following paragraphs. 305

Gates Like the book of Jeremiah, the book of Ezekiel abounds with references to gates.308 The Temple Vision itself mentions five gates. The first gate of the Temple Vision is mentioned in Ezek 8:3: ‫ל־ּפ ַתח ַׁש ַער‬ ֶ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ימית ַהּפֹונֶ ה ָצפֹונָ ה‬ ִ ִ‫ה ְּפנ‬. ַ Translations of this phrase vary according to the interpretation of the term ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ה ְּפנ‬. ַ The term is grammatically feminine but ‫“ ַׁש ַער‬gate” is a masculine noun. The gender disagreement has been resolved in two ways.309 First, some scholars suppose that the feminine adjective is a scribal error and suggest changing the feminine into masculine ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ה ְּפנ‬, ַ yielding “to the entry of the inner gate facing north.” In this case the adjective does not specify the court where the gate stood, but identifies the gate as the inner gate. Second, the feminine adjective is taken to be an elliptic form of the expression ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ֶה ָח ֵצר ַה ְּפנ‬ (cf. Ezek 10:3).310 In this case, the gate led to the inner court of the temple. The choice of interpretation here determines how one reconstructs Ezekiel’s journey. Placing the gate at the entrance to the inner court of the temple locates all the abominable acts witnessed by the prophet in the temple area.311 If the gate is the inner gate of the city or palace, however, then the first abominations observed by Ezekiel were located outside the temple area – within the inner city/palace gate. Following the latter interpretation, W. Zimmerli proposed that the Temple Vision described Ezekiel’s movement from outside the city, through the city gates, and into the inner court.312 Even though Zimmerli’s reconstruction is the best we Levenson 1976, 25–56. Zimmerli 1979, 234. 307 Zimmerli 1979, 129–136; Hossfeld 1986, 152–165. 308 Most of the remarks on the temple gates are concentrated in Ezek 40–48; in addition, Ezek 21:20, 27; 26:10 refer to city gates. 309 The Peshitta interprets it as the “corner gate” (‫ ַה ִּפּנָ ה‬‎‫‏ׁש ַער‬ ַ ). 310 Instead of “court” the phrase could have contained ‫“ ֶּפ ַתח‬door,” but this would also create a gender disagreement (Sprank and Wiese 1926, 4–5). 311 For a good review and critique of various proposals, see Allen 2002, 138–139. 312 Zimmerli 1979, 237. 305 306

92

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

have, one part of his argument is based on the fact that the abbreviation ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ַה ְּפנ‬ is otherwise not found in the Bible. This assumption is, however, questionable. In §3.5.2.3 I presented similar cases involving adjectives that differ in gender from the nouns they modify, and I believe these five cases constitute sufficient evidence to prove that the gate of Ezek 8:3 was not “the inner gate” but “the gate of the inner (city/court).” The location of the first abomination would thus be “the inner (city/court).” This conclusion would agree with S. Sprank’s and W. Zimmerli’s reconstruction of Ezekiel’s journey as a movement from the outside to the inside.313 The second gate, ‫“ ַׁש ַער ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬the altar gate,”314 occurs only in Ezek 8:5. The text mentions that north of this gate there was a ‫“ ֵס ֶמל ַה ִּקנְ ָאה‬statue of jealousy.” The repetition of the term ‫ ֵס ֶמל ַה ִּקנְ ָאה‬with the addition of the demonstrative pronoun ‫ ַהּזֶ ה‬led many scholars to conclude that these two gates are identical.315 This conclusion is implausible, however, since in Ezek 8:5 the “statue of jealousy” is located north of the “altar gate,” whereas in Ezek 8:3 the “statue of jealousy” is in the entranceway of the gate (Ezek 8:3, 5). The only solid information we can recover from the text is that the gate of Ezek 8:3 was located north of the “altar gate.”316 In biblical accounts describing the later phase of the southern kingdom, the term “altar” usually refers to the main altar in the temple court (2 Kgs 16:10–11; 18:22). If this interpretation is correct, then the “altar gate” was one of the temple gates connected with the main altar and not a city or a palace gate; perhaps it was the gate that led to the altar, or a gate through which one could see the altar.317 However, the name ‫ ַׁש ַער ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬could be applied to any gate with or near an altar, and consequently it is not certain whether the two gates of Ezek 8:3 and 8:5 were gates of the temple. Following Zimmerli’s proposal, it is more logical that both were gates of the city or the palace. The third gate appears in Ezek 8:14: ‫ל־ה ָּצפֹונָ ה‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפ ַתח ַׁש ַער ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ֶא‬ ֶ ‫“ ֶא‬to the entry of the gate of the temple of the Lord that gives on to the north.” This verse refers to the gate located on the northern side of the temple. In the entry of this gate were the women weeping for the god Tammuz.318 Like the gate in Ezek 8:3, this gate had a ‫“ ֶּפ ַתח‬entry.” The noun derived from the verb ‫“ פתח‬to open” means any kind of opening, entranceway, doorway, or gateway. It can describe the entrance to a tent (Gen 18:11) or to a building (Gen 19:11). In the Temple Vision it appears in the construct chain ‫( ֶּפ ַתח ַׁש ַער‬Ezek 8:3, 14; 10:19; See, for example, Sprank and Wiese 1926, 12–25, and Block 1997, 280. LXX has ἐπὶ τὴν πύλην τὴν πρὸς ἀνατολάς “to the eastern gate,” probably reading ‫המזרח‬ instead of ‫המזבח‬. 315 Greenberg 1983, 168. 316 This does not mean that the “altar gate” had to be located immediately north of the altar; it could have stood northwest or northeast of the altar. 317 Block 1997. 318 The use of several vegetation motifs to decorate the temple may have been connected with the cult of the Sumerian-Babylonian vegetation deity Tammuz (Strange 1985, 35–36). 313 314

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

93

11:1). As suggested by G. A. Cooke, it describes an entrance or a door to the gate. The gate could be understood as a large structure with multiple rooms, as was common in the Bronze and Iron Age periods in the Levant. In that case ‫ֶּפ ַתח‬ would designate either a door of the gate or another type of entranceway.320 It is important to notice that Ezek 8:5 uses the term ‫“ ִּב ָאה‬entryway,”321 which is most likely a synonym of ‫ּפ ַתח‬. ֶ The fourth gate occurs in Ezek 9:2: ‫ְך־ׁש ַער ָה ֶע ְליֹון ֲא ֶׁשר ָמ ְפנֶ ה ָצפֹונָ ה‬ ַ ‫“ ִמ ֶּד ֶר‬from the direction of the upper gate that faces north.” The adjective ‫“ ֶע ְליֹון‬upper” in connection with a gate occurs also in 2 Kgs 15:35 (referring to the upper gate built by Jotham) and in Jer 20:2 (“the upper Benjamin gate”). This is the only one of the temple gates mentioned in Ezekiel that we can identify with any confidence as one of the gates mentioned in Kings or Jeremiah. The fifth gate is also a temple gate: ‫“ ֶּפ ַתח ַׁש ַער ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ַה ַּק ְדמֹונִ י‬the entry of the eastern gate of the temple of the Lord” (Ezek 10:19). In Ezek 11:1 it is specified as “the eastern gate facing east.” 319

Courts Another characteristic feature of the temple in the Temple Vision is the set of courts, which are closely related to the gates. The first three gates and the first two courts are mentioned in Ezek 8. This chapter is divided into four sections by the repetition of the expressions ‫( וַ ָּת ֵבא א ִֹתי‬Ezek 8:3) and ‫( וַ ֵּיָבא א ִֹתי‬Ezek 8:7, 14, 16).322 While the architectural settings of the first and third legs of Ezekiel’s mystical journey were the gates, the second and fourth legs of his journey took place in the courts. In the second stage of his journey (Ezek 8:7–13) Ezekiel is transferred to ‫ל־ּפ ַתח ֶה ָח ֵצר‬ ֶ ‫“ ֶא‬the entry of the court” – without any further explanation of which court this was (Ezek 8:7). This court included a wall along which rooms had been built (cf. below). “The inner court” forms the architectural setting of the fourth part of Ezekiel’s journey (8:16–18), where he witnesses twenty-five men bowing down to the sun. This court is mentioned also in Ezek 10:3 and referred to as “the court” in the following verse (10:4). It stands in contrast to “the outer court” (10:5). The inner court surrounded the temple building and encompassed the ulam, the main altar (8:16), and the bronze altar (9:2). In Ezek 8:16, which specifies where the elders were prostrating themselves, ‫ּובין ַה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח‬ ֵ ‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה ֵּבין ָה‬ ַ ‫ה־פ ַתח ֵה‬ ֶ ֵ‫ וְ ִהּנ‬can be translated “at the entry to the hekal, i.e., between the ulam and the altar.” In this translation, which is followed by most scholars, ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֶפּ ַתח ֵה‬is construed

319 Outside of this phrase the term is also used to describe the entry of the court (Ezek 8:7) and the entry of the hekal (Ezek 8:16). 320 Cooke 1936, 91. 321 HAHw 2:120. 322 For the division of the chapter, see Block 1997, 283, and Sedlmeier 2002, 140–141.

94

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

as an accusativus loci (cf. Gen 18:1), i.e., “at the entry of the Lord.”323 The term hekal, however, is usually interpreted here not as the nave of the temple – that is, the area between the ulam and the debir, according to the tripartite model of the temple familiar from Ain Dara – but as the temple itself. Thus “the entry of the hekal” here is taken to be the entry to the temple, probably identical with the entry to the ulam, oriented to the east (Ezek 8:16). Consequently, the twenty-five elders were stationed in the inner courtyard before the entry of the temple, more specifically between the ulam and the altar. A serious objection to this generally accepted interpretation of Ezek 8:16 can be raised on the basis of the use of the expression ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֶפּ ַתח ַה ֵה‬in 1 Kgs 6:33, which occurs in conjunction with a similar expression, ‫ּפ ַתח ַה ְּד ִביר‬, ֶ in 1 Kgs 6:31. These two phrases describe the doorway to the hekal and to the debir respectively. In both cases the term ‫ ֶפּ ַתח‬describes the doors and the doorframes. Consequently, 1 Kgs 6:33 rules out the possibility that “the entry to the hekal” could have been identical with the entry to the ulam because, according to 1 Kgs 6–8, the ulam had no doors. This raises a question: Where was the ulam in respect to “the entry to the hekal” in Ezek 8:16? All the versions read “at the entry to the hekal, between the ulam and the altar.” If the interpretation of “the hekal” as “the temple” is rejected – indeed, elsewhere in Ezekiel it always refers to the nave alone324 – then “the entry to the hekal” must have been located between the ulam and the altar, and the men would have been standing in this space. The consequences of this reading will surprise anyone accustomed to the tripartite model of the temple (debir–hekal–ulam). If we want to place “the entry to the hekal” between the ulam and the altar of the inner court, then the ulam could not have been attached to the hekal. In short, Ezek 8:16 admits two interpretations. The generally accepted interpretation reads hekal as synonymous with the temple, and thus assumes that the inner court encompassed the altar and the temple building. The temple building was called the hekal and had the ulam attached to it. The text, however, allows another interpretation according to which the ulam was not attached to the temple building and the entrance to the hekal was located between the altar and the ulam. Rooms Another important architectural feature mentioned in the Temple Vision is the set of rooms (Ezek 8:12) in which the idolatric cult took place. The description is certainly enigmatic: ‫“ ַּבח ֶֹׁשְך ִאיׁש ְּב ַח ְד ֵרי ַמ ְׂש ִּכיתֹו‬each in the darkness of the

In Ezek 9:3; 10:4, 18 the term “threshold” is used to describe the limits of the temple. Zimmerli’s interpretation of ‫ ֶפּ ַתח‬as a podium was sharply contested by Allen (2002, 122). 324 Ezek 41:1, 4, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25; 42:8. 323

3.6 Specific Architectural Changes

95

rooms of his imagination.” The term ‫ ֶח ֶדר‬refers to an interior room, a sort of cubicle or carrel, located within another edifice.326 In this sense the rooms would have been “separate cubicles in which each of the men performed his rituals.”327 The terminology used for these rooms suggests that they were different from the chambers mentioned in Jeremiah and 2 Kings, for the terminology presupposes the existence of a larger structure in which the cubicles or carrels were contained.328 325

Conclusion For the purposes of this study, the most informative part of the book of Ezekiel is the so-called Temple Vision (Ezek 8–11). This section portrays the temple in a partially different way than Kings and Jeremiah. The temple contained the hekal and the ulam (Ezek 8:16); however, the temple itself was called the miqdaš (Ezek 8:6). This term does not occur in Kings or Jeremiah. The gates described in the Temple Vision cannot all be harmonized with those mentioned in Jeremiah and 2 Kings. In particular, the Temple Vision refers to three gates facing north: “the gate of the inner court” (Ezek 8:3), “the temple gate” (Ezek 8:14),329 and “the upper gate” (Ezek 9:2).330 In addition there were other two gates: “the altar gate” (Ezek 8:5) and “the eastern gate” (Ezek 10:19; 11:1). Of these five gates, three gates were temple gates (Ezek 8:14; 9:2; 10:19) and the other two were probably city or palace gates (Ezek 8:3, 5). The temple as depicted in the Temple Vision also had at least two courts, “the inner court” and “the outer court.”331 The identification of the court mentioned in Ezek 8:9 remains uncertain. Since the group of people populating this court is different from the twenty-five men worshiping the sun in “the inner court,” it can be concluded that this court was either “the outer court” or a different court. According to the former hypothesis the temple had two courts; according to the latter it had three courts. Moreover, the Temple Vision indicates that this court had a wall along which idols and structures containing cubicles or carrels were located.

325 The ancient traditions witness the development of the text from “imagination” to “bedroom”; for details, see Allen 2002. 326 Fabry 1978, 3:223–224. Originally they might have been tomb chambers (Zwickel 1990, 241–244). 327 Block 1997, 291. 328 Ackerman 1992, 54–55. 329 Though both Jer 7:3 and Ezek 8:14 speak about “the gate of the temple of the Lord,” Ezekiel specifies that this gate faced north, and therefore it is questionable whether we can identify these two gates. 330 To be identified with the gate mentioned in Jer 20:2 and that built by Jotham (2 Kgs 15:35). 331 The plural in Ezek 9:7 suggests multiple courts, contrary to the specification “two courts” in 2 Kgs 21:5 and 23:12.

96

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

The multiple gates, courts, and carrels described in the Temple Vision confirm the image projected by Jeremiah and 2 Kgs 18–25, namely, that in the late preexilic period the Temple Mount was a heavily urbanized area. The temple was fully integrated into the urban landscape of the Temple Mount. It had multiple courts, gates, and other types of edifices.

3.7 Synthesis Extant texts, corroborated by excavations, demonstrate that the reconstruction of temples was a normal practice in the ancient Near East. Was the temple of Jerusalem an exception? In this chapter I have analyzed several biblical texts that directly or indirectly suggest that the preexilic temple of Jerusalem underwent renovations and even radical changes. Let us group them according to motives and types. Motives for the changes The motives for the reconstruction of ancient Near Eastern temples varied from the need to repair damage caused by natural disasters to a command issued by a god to the king during a night vision. The most obvious motives for rebuilding a temple were natural disasters such as fire and earthquakes. The biblical accounts do not mention any conflagration that might have damaged the temple prior to its destruction by the Babylonians. As for earthquakes, there is only indirect evidence to be drawn from the list of frequently occurring earthquakes that often damaged Jerusalem, including the temple area. Amos 1:1, Zech 14:4, and Ant. 9.225 also suggest that the temple area suffered damage. In addition to the harm wrought by natural disasters, ancient temples were frequently looted and despoiled since they were the repositories of national wealth. The Bible mentions eight occasions when the despoliation of the temple affected its furnishings and décor. During the invasion of the Israelite king Joash it can be reasonably concluded that the temple itself was also damaged. Moreover, ancient temples naturally became dilapidated over time and required reconstruction. According to the biblical texts the temple of Jerusalem fell into such a state twice and was repaired by Joash and later by Josiah. Finally, ambitious kings who promulgated religious reforms left their mark on the temple architecture as well. The Bible mentions the reforms of Jehoiada/ Joash, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh/Amon, and Josiah. Some reforms affected the organization of the temple hierarchy, others the temple precincts, and the others the temple furniture and decorations.

3.7 Synthesis

97

Who was credited with alterations to the temple? From the analyses presented in this chapter it has become evident that various architectural elements were added to or removed from the preexilic temple. In some cases the biblical texts even mention who was responsible for these changes. Thus we learn that Asa brought vessels into the temple and Jotham built the upper gate. Ahaz set aside the bronze altar. He also removed the bronze borders of the bases, the laver, and the lions that were under the great sea. He furthermore built a new altar and reconstructed the royal entrance of the outer court as well as the Shabbat shelter / inner shrine. Hezekiah removed the neḥuštan, decorated the temple doors and doorposts with precious metals, and then dismantled them. Manasseh refurbished the temple with some cultic objects and Josiah removed them. Josiah is also credited with demolishing the houses of the idolatrous personnel. In sum, the biblical text credits the most important Judean kings with making changes to the temple furnishings and architecture. Thus the biblical texts follow the logic of ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions, according to which taking care of the temple was both the duty of the king and a source of his glory (cf. §2.2.2). What changes were made? From the biblical texts it is possible to conclude that the temple precincts were rebuilt several times. The first change in the temple precincts concerned the temple courts. The texts mention various temple courts.332 Despite all the efforts of modern and ancient scholars, it is difficult to coordinate the temple courts in texts referring to the later preexilic period with those mentioned in 1 Kgs 6–8. As a result, scholars have proposed that the preexilic temple had one, two, or even three courts.333

332 2 Kgs 21:5 and 23:12 refer to “two courts” and Isa 1:12 has the plural form “my courts.” The temple courts are often designated without further specification, e.g., “the court of the temple of the Lord” (Jer 19:14; 26:2; cf. also Ezek 8:7). Sometimes the temple courts bear different names. Thus 1 Kgs 6:36 refers to “the inner court” (cf. also 1 Kgs 7:12; Ezek 8:16; 10:3), 1 Kgs 8:64 to “the court that was in front of the temple of the Lord,” and the qere reading of 2 Kgs 20:4 to “the middle court.” In addition, there was “the upper court” (Jer 36:10), “the outer court” (2 Kgs 16:18; Ezek 10:5), and the temple precincts (parwarim; 2 Kgs 23:11). Besides the temple courts the Bible also mentions the palace courts. The palace court may simply be called “the court” (Jer 36:20), or it may be identified more specifically as “the other court” (1 Kgs 7:8), “the great court” (1 Kgs 7:9, 12), or “the court of the guards” (Jer 32:2, 8, etc.). 333 An important attempt to reconstruct the temple precincts is Salignac Fénelon 1904, F. 19– 26. For more recent reconstructions, see Lesétre 1912, 5:2034–2035; Cole 1920, 29–30; Orlinsky 1939, 102; Gray 1976, 697; Hoffmann 1980, 249–250; Hentschel 1985; Hobbs 1985, 306; Hamp 1986, 5:135; Cogan and Tadmor 1988, 266; Provan 1997, 267; and Fritz 2003, 390. Among reconstructions of the temple complex, those of T. A. Busink (1970, 143–160) and W. Zwickel

98

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

Moreover, at some point the inner court was paved with cobblestones. The biblical texts also mention that in the temple courts there were smaller and larger altars, various utensils, and, during the reigns of Joash and Josiah, a column used by the king for making ex cathedra announcements. Some of these features were progressively added or removed from the temple courts (cf. above). Thus the removal of bronze objects from the courts and the paving of the court floor, as well as the construction of the new altar, must have significantly altered the appearance of the temple courts. The courts were accessed through numerous gates.334 If it is difficult to harmonize the biblical references to the temple courts, the numerous and contradictory ways of harmonizing the temple gates make it even clearer that at the present stage of our knowledge any reconstruction of the temple gates must remain hypothetical. Incorporating all the references to the temple gates into one logical system becomes even more complex when we realize that besides the word ‫ַׁש ַער‬ “gate,” the Bible uses three other words that may or may not refer to gates: ‫ ֶ ּפ ַתח‬335 “entry” (Ezek 8:3, 14, etc.), ‫“ ָמבֹוא‬entrance” (2 Kgs 16:18; Jer 38:14), and ‫“ ִּב ָאה‬entryway” (Ezek 8:5). The term ‫“ ֶּפ ַתח‬entry” describes various types of entrances to the temple court, the temple gates, or the temple itself. Similarly ambiguous is the term ‫“ ָמבֹוא‬entrance,” which occurs twice, in the phrases “the royal entrance” (2 Kgs 16:18) and “the third entrance” (Jer 38:14).336 This would indicate that the temple had at least three entrances. Finally, the temple also had an “entryway” connected with “the altar gate.” Despite all the uncertainties, we can still draw some conclusions about the temple gates. Even though the gates became a distinctive feature of Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple (cf. Ezek 40–47) and of the postexilic temple (e.g., Zech 14:10; 1 Chr 9:18;337 26:16),338 it is difficult to conclude that all references in 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are postexilic additions. By the same token, gates and entrances are not mentioned in 1 Kgs 6–8, and the first gates appear only in connection with Jehoiada and Joash (2 Kgs 11–12), i.e., in the text describing the late preexilic period. In addition, the notes on the gates of the temple are em(1999, 157–160) represent the best ones proposed so far. Busink also offers a valuable discussion of previous proposals. 334 The Bible refers generally to “the gate” (Jer 7:2), or more specifically to “the gate Sur” and “the gate behind the guards” (2 Kgs 11:6), “the upper gate” (2 Kgs 15:35), “the upper Benjamin gate” (Jer 20:2), “the upper gate” facing north (Ezek 9:2), “the new gate” (Jer 36:10), “the gate of the inner (court) facing north” (Ezek 8:3), “the altar gate” (Ezek 8:5), “the gate” facing north (Ezek 8:14), and “the eastern gate” (Ezek 10:19; 11:1). 335 For a possible distinction between the ‫ ֶּפ ַתח‬and the ‫ׁש ַער‬, ַ see Otto 2006, 15:368. 336 Possibly also the revocalized form in 2 Kgs 23:11. 337 In the case of Joash’s reform, the Chronicler specified that the ark was placed outside the temple gate (2 Chr 24:8). No gate is mentioned in 2 Kgs 12. For a similar addition, see 2 Chr 31:2. 338 For a new reconstruction of chambers and courts in the postexilic period, see Patrich 2011, 215–224.

3.7 Synthesis

99

bedded in various literary contexts, such as the poetic and narrative passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s visions, and the narrative in 2 Kings. The variety of literary genres in which the gates are mentioned as well as the secondary character of some of the notes describing them constitutes a solid foundation for V. A. Hurwitz’s conclusion that at some moment in its long history the preexilic temple was outfitted with gates,339 or the temple gates were rebuilt. The biblical texts also mention numerous structures located in the temple precincts: the houses for male and female personnel (2 Kgs 23:7), the carrels where idolatric practices were conducted (Ezek 8:12), the chamber of Nathan-melech (2 Kgs 23:11), and four chambers for the temple personnel (Jer 35:1–4; 36:10). All these edifices are mentioned in texts describing the late preexilic temple. Their construction and removal were attributed to important preexilic kings. To complete the image of the temple precincts it is necessary to recognize that the temple was connected to the palace. Thus chambers (Jer 36:12, 21), the royal gardens (2 Kgs 25:4), and the palace complex with its courts, edifices, and gates (see, e.g., Jer 36) were attached to the temple complex. Out of this data emerges an interesting picture of the temple precincts in the late preexilic period, with their multiple courts, gates, houses, chambers, and rooms. It became a highly developed area populated with different types of cultic furniture. This arrangement of the temple precincts not only permitted the people to access the temple complex, it also fostered the development of the temple into a meeting place for the people – a sort of “national shrine.” The varied terminology used to describe the area and the notes inserted among the biblical texts lead us to conclude that these structures were built over time, and that some were rebuilt more than once. In short, on the one hand we can conclude that the biblical texts agree that in the late preexilic period, the temple precincts underwent various important changes. On the other hand, the final form of the biblical text conflates notes from different periods, hence it is impossible to reconstruct a coherent model of the temple precincts by assembling all the details contained in the final text of the Bible, since over the centuries some features were removed and replaced with others. Was the temple itself rebuilt? The biblical texts contain two important remarks on the architecture of the temple interior. First, we learn that there were rooms/compartments within the temple for storing the temple’s gold and silver, vessels, trophies of war, and the weapons of heroes. The temple of the postexilic period, in contrast, had storehouses attached to the temple. Second, various biblical texts of different literary genres concur that the preexilic temple at a certain moment in its history had both 339

20).

Some of them resemble those found in excavations at Megiddo and Gezer (Hurowitz,

100

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

a hekal and an ulam (2 Kgs 18:16; 23:4, 13; Isa 6:1; Jer 7:4; Ezek 8:16).340 While the storerooms/compartments are mentioned in texts relating to the Judean kings throughout the entire preexilic period, the first references to the hekal and the ulam are in texts describing the later preexilic period. Some notes also betray changes in the temple buildings. The temple itself was without any doubt affected by looting and voluntary despoliation. The Bible mentions four occasions when the temple treasury was used to pay off an invader or to bribe a foreign power. The case of Hezekiah showed that making a payment to Assyria also meant despoiling the temple of its silver and gold decoration and dismantling some parts of the temple. Similarly, 2 Kgs 16 reports that paying off the occupying power took a toll on the furnishings of the temple. In addition to these voluntary despoliations of the temple, the preexilic temple was looted four times. In all four cases the temple treasury was left empty. While Shishak’s looting aimed at securing the wealth of the temple, the other three had a much more violent character. The similarities between the two Babylonian lootings and that conducted by the Israelite king Joash suggests that before the Babylonian destruction, the temple was similarly damaged by Israelite troops during Amaziah’s reign. In sum, biblical texts suggest that the temple was despoiled eight times between Solomon and Zedekiah, and that the looting affected not only the objects stored in the temple but also its decorations. Given the present state of the biblical text, however, it is impossible to establish which of these eight despoliations indeed took place and which were only literary devices. The furniture of the temple was exposed to changes not only during the pillaging of the temple but also during religious reforms. The kings who initiated religious reforms moved some cultic objects into or out of the temple. As in the case of the despoliation accounts, caution must be exercised here as well; due to the strong theological coloring of the biblical reform narratives, it is difficult to determine the content of the various religious reforms. Nevertheless, the biblical texts provide enough evidence to conclude that the decoration of the temple and its furnishings was altered a few times in the preexilic period. An analysis of the technical vocabulary used in 2 Kgs 12 and 22 as well as the types of workers and materials employed in Joash’s and Josiah’s remodeling of the temple led us to interpret these two restoration projects not as minor repair works but rather as major reconstructions of the preexilic temple. Comparable endeavors are described in the Bible only in the case of Solomon’s erection of the original temple and the reconstruction of the ruined temple by returned exiles. This analysis allows us to conclude that in these two cases, the temple was not simply restored but partially rebuilt or built completely anew, just as several ancient Near Eastern temples were rebuilt from the ground up by ambitious kings. Finally, a reconstruction of the inner shrine can be inferred from 2 Kgs 16:18. However, this interpretation, although plausible, must remain a hypothesis. Anal340

Outside the building narratives (1 Kgs 6–8, 2 Chr 3–7), debir occurs only in Ps 28:2.

3.7 Synthesis

101

ysis of the biblical texts leads us to conclude that the decoration and furnishing of the temple underwent several changes in the preexilic period. The texts give strong indications that the temple building was also rebuilt; however, the precise extent of the reconstructions cannot be determined. 3.7.1 Four Periods in the Architectural Evolution of the Temple The preceding review has shown that the preexilic temple underwent various types of change over its long history. This conclusion raises a question: Can we discern stages in the architectural evolution of the temple? Although synthesis is always the most vulnerable part of a monograph, I will hazard some conclusions based on my previous analyses. I have noted that the biblical reports on changes in the temple architecture following its construction in the time of Solomon are concentrated within three periods: the career of Jehoiada and the reign of Joash; the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz; and the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh and Amon, and Josiah. Consequently, I propose dividing the history of the preexilic temple into a total of four periods.341 Period I: The most important moment in the history of the temple was evidently its construction.342 The construction of a temple and a royal palace usually played an integrative role in the first stages of state formation.343 The Bible attributes this phase to David and Solomon and presents it in rhetoric characteristic of ancient Near Eastern royal propaganda. The temple guaranteed God’s support for and approval of the king, who had to periodically visit God in the temple where he dwelled (1 Kgs 14:28). Good relations between God and the king translated into For a similar division of the history of Jerusalem, see Keel 2011, 54–92, 2007, 234–771. K. Rupprecht (1977) suggested that Solomon rebuilt an old Jebusite shrine. Even though we will have no way to test Rupprecht’s conclusion until the Temple Mount has been excavated, from our general knowledge of ancient Near Eastern religion it is impossible to imagine that a site such as Jerusalem could have been inhabited for several centuries without a shrine (Reich 2011, 279–317). Similarly it is difficult to think that a king in Jerusalem, a city important enough to be mentioned in the Amarna letters (EA 285–290), would not have had access to a shrine. The Amarna letters show that the city of Jerusalem was comparable with major Canaanite cities that had shrines, such as Shechem and Gezer. In sum, none of these elements constitutes proof of the existence of a Jebusite shrine in Jerusalem before the tenth century BCE; however, to imagine Late Bronze Age Jerusalem as a site without a shrine is even more difficult. The logical conclusion that Jerusalem had a shrine before the tenth century BCE does not, however, mean that Solomon merely reconstructed an existing edifice. In ancient Near Eastern building accounts we can observe three ways of dealing with an old shrine: (1) it was repaired and refurbished; (2) it was torn down and built anew; or (3) a new shrine was built in the vicinity of the old one, which was gradually abandoned. M. Ottosson (1980, 111–112) derives another argument in favor of a pre-Solomonic shrine from 2 Chr 3:1, “the threshing floor of Araunah.” According to Ottosson, this note suggests that the site was formerly a Jebusite cult site. 343 Meyers 1992, 6:355. 341 342

102

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

blessings and protection for people. A. Lemaire suggested that in this initial period the temple served mainly as a royal chapel.344 Besides fulfilling religious purposes, the temple served as the national treasury. An analysis of terminology used of the temple treasury showed that in contrast to the storehouses associated with the second temple, the book of Kings used the stereotyped expression “storerooms of the temple.” This indicates that Kings presupposed a temple that contained within the building a set of carrels or compartments in which the wealth of the nation could be safely stored. The temple continued to serve this purpose until the Babylonian destruction. The temple treasure did not remain untouched over the years, however, and in the first phase of its existence the temple was despoiled once by Shishak345 and once during Asa’s reign. The looting and despoliation affected above all the temple furnishings and its decoration, which were carried away or stripped off; it is also possible that entire parts of the temple were dismantled. Period II: The Bible attributes to King Joash (836–798 BCE) the first major intervention in the temple. He is said to have repaired the temple, and I have argued that this was not simply regular maintenance performed on a dilapidated temple, but rather a substantial reconstruction of the temple on a par with Solomon’s original construction and the later reconstruction of the destroyed temple by those returning from the Babylonian exile. In other words, the biblical texts allow us to interpret the account of Joash’s building activity as signifying that the temple was not only refurbished but partially or completely rebuilt. Soon after Joash’s reconstruction, the temple was looted by the Aramean king Hazael and the Israelite king Joash. I have argued that the latter carried out a drastic looting comparable in scale to the Babylonian one. The biblical report of the destruction of the wall of Jerusalem and the archaeological evidence of the destruction layers from Shemesh allow us to conclude that in the Israelite invasion during Amaziah’s reign (798–769 BCE), the temple building could have been damaged as well. If this hypothesis is accepted, then the temple would have been in need of another extensive reconstruction. With this period the biblical texts associate two architectural features that were not mentioned in previous accounts: two gates that connected the temple with the palace, and the column used by the king. Since these features occur in the temple stratum of the narrative, they may reflect the pen of a later redactor. The Bible situates this first reconstruction of the temple in the ninth century BCE. In this century the main players in the Levant were Aram and Assyria. This century was full of intricate allegiances among the kingdoms of the Levant and Lemaire 2011, 197. The historicity of Shishak’s invasion and plundering of the temple has been challenged, since it is not mentioned in Shishak’s annals. According to I. Finkelstein (2011, 192), it is possible that the city of Jerusalem was so unimportant and underdeveloped that the Egyptian king did not find it worth attacking. 344 345

3.7 Synthesis

103

continuous fluctuations in the political equilibrium, as illustrated by the Moabite Stone and the Assyrian royal inscriptions. The Bible attributes an important shift in the political affiliation of Judah to Jehoiada and Joash. On the one hand, by executing Queen Athaliah, Jehoiada shook off the Israelite-Phoenician yoke, allowing Judah to assert its independence. On the other hand, the ebbing of Assyrian pressure gave the Arameans leeway to extend their control over Israel and even Judah. As a result, Jehoiada’s and Joash’s ambitions were soon truncated by invading Aramean troops. When Aramean control finally diminished, Amaziah aspired to extend Judah’s sphere of influence. This dream was also quickly brought to its end, this time by Israelite troops who severely damaged the city and looted the temple. These events formed the historical background of the first reconstruction of the temple and the major looting that followed. The Bible situated Jehoiada’s putsch and Joash’s reconstruction of the temple in the context of an important religious reform: a major anti-Baal reform and the stipulation of a covenant similar to that of Elijah (1 Kgs 18). The biblical texts also refer to a major fiscal reform aimed at joint control of the temple income by clergy and king and the reorganization of the temple administration. As a result of these reforms, the king had more power over the temple and ultimately over the temple-palace complex. The Bible attributed these political and religious changes to the priest Jehoiada and the righteous king Joash. The Bible thus places the first important reconstruction of the temple in a particular political and religious context. The first major intervention in the temple overlapped with a period of national renewal, the anti-Baal revolt, a major fiscal reform concerning temple income, and the reorganization of the temple-palace administration. Period III: The biblical text attributes to Jotham and Ahaz the construction of the upper gate and a new altar, as well as an extensive reconstruction of the temple precincts. The texts describing the vicissitudes of this period presuppose the existence of two temple courts, one of which was paved with cobblestones. The problematic expression ‫ מיסך הׁשבת‬can be interpreted in two ways. If it is taken as a “Shabbat structure” located in the court, then Ahaz rebuilt another part of the temple court. If it is interpreted as the inner sanctuary, then Ahaz, besides the temple court, also rebuilt the interior of the temple building.346 Overall the Bible depicts the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz as a period when the temple precincts changed significantly in appearance and possibly the interior of the temple underwent changes as well. Ahaz’s reconstruction of the temple coincides with the period when Judah struggled to find its own place in the tense international scene of the late 346 Even though the former proposal is more frequently cited, it is far from a final solution to the problem, and the proposal advanced by B. Stade and A. Šanda (cf. §3.5.2.3), which modern commentators have by and large overlooked, should not be excluded simply because it does not fit into a traditional concept of the temple.

104

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

eighth-century BCE Levant. Assyria became the major political player and expanded in all directions. Ahaz opted to separate himself from the anti-Assyrian bloc and voluntarily submitted to the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (cf. §3.5.2). As a result of this shift in the political balance, on the one hand Judah had to pay tribute to Assyria, while on the other hand, Ahaz enjoyed the protection and freedom granted to Assyrian vassals, which allowed him to undertake some important building projects. Without any doubt, Ahaz’s most important construction was the new altar that dominated the main temple court. On the religious level, burnt offerings were gradually gaining ground and Ahaz’s new altar established a site for them in the temple court. Moreover, the daily offerings and the offerings of the people on special occasions were also becoming a regular part of the temple cult. The construction of a new altar and the realignment of the temple cult also had an impact on temple attendance. The new upper gate facilitated public access to the altar, and the paved floor prepared the temple court for the increase in traffic that accompanied changes in offerings and attendance.347 Consequently, the construction of the upper gate and the new altar as well as the rearrangement of the temple courts was a step that affected not only the architecture of the temple but also the flow of daily activity. The temple gradually became accessible to the people. The biblical authors considered this change to be in harmony with their beliefs and traditions since it had started with Solomon. Following A. Lemaire’s proposal we can conclude that these rearrangements of the temple complex little by little paved the way for the transformation of the temple from a “royal chapel” into a “national shrine” that reached its apex in the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Period IV: The Bible connects the fourth period in the development of the temple with the reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh and his son Amon, and Josiah. In this period, which continued until the end of the southern kingdom, the temple precincts underwent numerous changes. It had several courts, which were accessible through multiple gates and entrances. Various chambers, rooms, and houses for temple personnel were constructed in the temple courts and at the gates, and some were attached to the temple building as well.348 The temple had a “column” (podium) used on special occasions when the king acted on behalf of the people and with solemn authority. The temple building was reconstructed for the second time. The biblical texts mention that the temple of this phase had a hekal and an ulam, but that does not exclude the possibility that these features had been built in the previous phase. The temple furniture also changed a few times. The inner Already the temple stratum in 2 Kgs 11–12 contains several indications that not only the king but also the people could enter the temple on special occasions. The biblical authors legitimized public access to the temple by linking it with Jehoiada’s reform (cf. §3.5.1). 348 To this list we can add barracks for storing materials and for housing temple repair workers. There is no evidence, however, that workers would have lived in barracks in the temple area (Zwickel 1999, 159). 347

3.7 Synthesis

105

sections of the temple were alternately filled with and emptied of different types of cult vessels and objects. The temple doors and doorposts were decorated and later despoiled or dismantled. Temple and palace became part of a single complex that had multiple courts, gates, palaces, and even royal gardens. During this period in the temple’s history the southern kingdom found itself in the midst of turbulent times: it endured a rebellion against Assyria and an invasion by Sennacherib, entered into a submissive phase in the moments when Assyria dominated the entire ancient Near East, and finally witnessed the fall of the Assyrian empire. During a brief intermediate period around the fall of Assyria, between the Egyptian expansion and the Babylonian conquest, the southern kingdom aspired to control adjacent kingdoms. The Bible connects this period with the ups and downs of the Yhwh religion. Religious reforms aimed at establishing an exclusive Yhwh cult alternated with more syncretic cultic practices. The temple served to centralize political and religious power. Both the political and religious shifts left their mark on the architecture of the Temple Mount, the temple precincts, and the cultic objects and edifices used by temple personnel, who were often involved in temple-related industries. The temple precincts became the setting for judicial procedures, prophetic denouncements, and political intrigues. A column or platform served as a stage for some of the king’s public appearances. To summarize, three biblical corpora (2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) present the late preexilic temple not as a small chapel reserved for the king and the temple personnel but as a large complex with sophisticated architecture that the public visited for daily worship and on special occasions. Archaeological evidence and the history of the temple Since a stratigraphy of the Temple Mount will not be available shortly, I can only compare the results reached from the analysis of the biblical texts with the admittedly preliminary results of excavations in the city of Jerusalem.349 Period I would correspond to Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE, Period II to the ninth century, Period III to the eighth century, and Period IV to the late eighth–sixth century. Periods III and IV would fit the archaeological picture of Jerusalem in the eighth and seventh century BCE. The city of Jerusalem expanded during the eighth century to include the southeast and southwest hills (Strata 12–10).350 Particularly revealing are the excavations on the western hill, which yielded clay figurines, seal impressions,351 and pottery sherds dated to the eighth century (Stra349 For some preliminary results and studies, see Avigad 1983; Ben-Dov 1985, 31–55; Laperrousaz 1999, 11–27; Mazar 2002, 3–16, 2003, 2009. 350 For a summary of the archaeological finds, see Shiloh 1984, 28–29. For the preexilic finds in the Armenian Garden, see Tushingham 1985, 9–24. 351 Geva 2003a, 63–112.

106

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

ta 9 and 8) and the seventh century (Stratum 7).352 The archaeological remains show that the southwestern hill was intensively occupied between the eighth and sixth century.353 The whole area was walled in.354 Wall 555355 and the socalled Israelite Tower (Walls 4006 and 4030) indicate that the city had strong fortifications, similar to other major sites of that period.356 The eastern side of the Temple Mount was also heavily fortified and a complex water system was cut through the rock to bring water into the city.357 Finally, the recent excavations on the southern slope of the Temple Mount (the Ophel) revealed inhabited areas dated to the eighth–seventh century.358 To this period are also dated inscriptions in paleo-Hebrew.359 In short, the areas in the city of Jerusalem that have been excavated thus far show that in the eighth and seventh century, the city of Jerusalem underwent a large urban development and expanded towards the west, south, and east. L. E. Stager has proposed some estimates: “In the eighth–seventh centuries BCE Jerusalem rapidly expanded to four times its former size. A large suburb (probably the mišneh, or “second quarter,” mentioned in 2 Kgs 22:14) sprang up on the western hill and was incorporated behind the massive fortifications of Jerusalem, a city that then occupied 50–60 ha. and included 10,000–12,000 inhabitants within its walls.”360 The Temple Mount was an integral part of the growing city of Jerusalem and served as a royal acropolis.361 Thus the changes in the temple architecture of Periods III and IV would fit the archaeological picture of Jerusalem in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, when the urban development of the city reached its peak.362 There is less archaeological evidence for Period II in the ninth century BCE, and it is difficult to estimate the extent of the city in this period. The excavations on the western hill yielded only a few sherds from the ninth century (Area E1, De Groot, Geva, and Yezerski 2003, 15–16. Barkay 2003, 60. 354 For a discussion of the fortification system of Jerusalem, see Laperrousaz 1999, 11–26. 355 Geva 2000, 45–58. 356 For the reconstruction of the walls, see Geva 2003b, 195–203. For the biblical texts referring to the fortification of the city and the water system, see Isa 22:9–11, 16. 357 Ariel and De Groot 1996, 1–28; Reich 2004, 51–76, 2011, 142–269; Reich, Shukron, and Lernau 2007, 153–154. 358 Mazar 2002, 3–14. 359 For the most recent inscription, see Reich and Shukron 2008, 47–48. 360 Stager 1982, 121. See also Finkelstein and Silberman 2006, 265–269. 361 Ussishkin 2009, 23. The plan of the royal acropolis of Jerusalem was most likely inspired by the urban model and concept used in Samaria and Jezreel. This urban model would have corresponded to acropolises known from the eighth century BCE (Ussishkin 2003, 535–536, 2009, 473–478). 362 The urban development of the last three periods would correspond to a formative period (ninth century BCE) and a fully operative period (eighth–seventh century BCE) (Finkelstein 2011, 192–197). 352 353

3.7 Synthesis

107

Stratum 13). Consequently, Y. Shiloh proposed that during the ninth century the western slope was not inhabited.363 The high influx of people in the eighth century was explained as the arrival of a large group of refugees that led the city of Jerusalem to expand in the span of a single generation.364 However, this idea has recently been challenged. First, it is difficult to speak about refugees in the Neo-Assyrian period. Second, the pottery from the western slope could have originated in the ninth century. Finally, the western slope of the city was occupied before it was walled in. This would indicate that the city started expanding before the construction of the wall, which is dated to the eighth century.365 In sum, it is reasonable to suppose that these construction activities had already started in the ninth century and reached their peak in the eighth century.366 On the other hand, the excavations in the area of the Gihon spring and the Ophel suggest that in the ninth–eighth century BCE, the southern slope of the Temple Mount was inhabited and the city of Jerusalem underwent a series of reconstructions. These building activities point to a new urban planning initiative in the Ophel area and probably also on the Temple Mount, as stated by E. Mazar: “According to this innovation, the palace and other administrative buildings were constructed in the highest part of the city, which was strongly fortified as a separate enclosure.”367 Even though these results must be further confirmed, it is still possible to conclude that the reconstruction of the temple-palace complex in Period II would fit the archaeological picture of the city’s expansion, particularly toward the south, in the ninth century BCE. Period I is the most problematic phase and has generated a heated discussion among scholars.368 The biblical account describes the glorious moments of the beginnings of the southern kingdom, which are difficult to match with reality because of the rhetoric they employ and the difficulties in dating some of the structures that have been unearthed, such as the Stone Structure in Jerusalem. I. Finkelstein, observing the lack of evidence, concluded that “Both archaeologically and textually there is no way to decide if the Jerusalem temple was built in the tenth century, as the Deuteronomistic Historian insists, if an earlier temple was renovated in the tenth century, or if the temple was built later.”369 Until further Shiloh 1984, 27, 72. Broshi 1974, 21–25; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006, 279–280. For other explanations, see Stager 1985, 2–35, and Geva 2003b, 204–208. 365 Faust 2005, 97–118; Na’aman 2007, 22. 366 Ussishkin 2003, 534. 367 Mazar 2002, 5. 368 The discussion concerns not only Jerusalem but also similar structures in Hazor and Megiddo; see, for example, Finkelstein 1996, 1998, 1999; Mazar 1997; and Franklin 2006. N. Na’aman (2014, 61) concluded that the so-called Large Stone Structure could have been David’s palace and that “the residence on the Temple Mount was initially a modest building, originally perhaps a ceremonial palace erected near the shrine that developed gradually over time.” 369 Finkelstein 2003, 98. 363 364

108

Chapter 3: Did the Preexilic Temple Change?

excavation results arrive, we can only conclude that the city was inhabited in Period I (tenth century BCE) and therefore it would be logical that it had a shrine.370 3.7.2 Conclusion The first chapter of this monograph showed how the temples of the ancient Near East developed. Some of them were completely rebuilt, others were partially refurbished. Ancient building projects that aimed at the reconstruction of ancient sanctuaries and the complex religious procedures used to justify such enterprises urge us to ask, What about the preexilic temple of Jerusalem? Did it change over the four centuries of its existence? While the four periods outlined in the previous section represent a maximalist interpretation of evidence recovered from the Bible through exegetical and historical analysis, let us also consider a minimalist position. In this chapter I have collected the biblical texts that refer, directly or indirectly, to possible reconstructions of the temple of Jerusalem. From the analysis of these texts, it can be concluded that the courts of the temple and its adjacent buildings underwent a series of significant changes. The courts were redesigned and paved, new gates and entrances were added to the temple area, and chambers and rooms filled a good part of the temple precincts. The temple itself also underwent some modifications. Above all, the temple decorations were stripped off and replaced on several occasions. The temple furniture and vessels were also altered a few times. Finally, the biblical texts permit us to conclude that the temple building itself was the object of reconstruction to some extent. These changes in the temple were part of the urban expansion of the ancient city of Jerusalem, which reached its peak in the eighth and seventh century BCE. As the city grew and was fortified, we can assume that the temple-palace complex was likewise enlarged. The temple was fully incorporated into a complex urban network of palaces, houses, and courts.

For a review of evidence, see Cahill 2003, 33–54, and Uziel and Shai 2007, 162–163. D. Ussishkin made an important contribution to the discussion on tenth-century Jerusalem. He argued that since the Temple Mount, due to its higher elevation, was the best place for a fortified acropolis, it seems logical that this part of the city was built first and that only later did it expand in other directions (Ussishkin 2009, 480). An important piece of evidence is the inscription unearthed in 2012 by E. Mazar, although the interpretation and dating vary; see Millard 2014. 370

Chapter 4

Stratigraphy of the Text (1 Kgs 6–8) and Stratigraphy of the Temple The textual data discussed in Chapter 2 showed that it was normal in the ancient Near East for temples to be regularly reconstructed and even completely rebuilt. The life expectancy of a temple varied from several decades up to several centuries, and a dilapidated or damaged temple had to be restored. Generally the temples were simply refurbished and rebuilt according to their original layout. On some occasions, ambitious kings did not hesitate to pull down a dilapidated temple and build it anew. In the process, they not only refurbished the temple but also altered its layout.1 All of these architectural restorations, regardless of their extent, needed special approval from the gods. This conclusion naturally invites the question, Did the preexilic temple change over the centuries? The survey of biblical texts referring to the preexilic temple in Chapter 3 showed that the biblical authors as well as later redactors did not oppose the idea that the preexilic temple underwent some changes. The rhetoric and redactional history of the Bible, however, complicate the matter. The previous chapter showed that the biblical texts directly or indirectly reveal that most of the changes in the preexilic temple affected the temple precincts, the adjacent structures, the temple decoration, and the furniture. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence that the layout of the temple building also underwent some changes. These changes were attributed to various kings, often because of theological reasons. Analysis of the biblical texts, including Deuteronomistic accounts of the reigns of Judean kings and the books of Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, led to the conclusion that the most important interventions in the preexilic temple can be assigned to four periods in the temple’s history (cf. §3.7.1). In contrast to ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions that detail how a series of kings repaired and renovated the same shrine over many centuries (cf. §2.2.1), the Bible credits Solomon alone with building the temple. No comparable building account appears in the biblical texts describing the reigns of other Judean kings, although the repairs made by Joash and Josiah are described in language that evokes Solomon’s activities (cf. §3.2). As a result, the biblical accounts present the temple as if it had been built by Solomon and had remained The Capitoline temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome is an excellent example showing that, in practice, even the most rigorous observance of an ancient pattern allowed for some significant changes (Perry 2012). 1

110

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

essentially unchanged till the Babylonian destruction. Therefore this chapter will be dedicated to the study of 1 Kgs 6‒8, which claims to describe the temple as it was in Solomon’s day. Whereas Chapter 3 presented a diachronic history of the temple on the basis of biblical texts that purport to describe various periods in the history of Judah, Chapter 4 also aims at a diachronic account of the temple, but it approaches this task by focusing on a text that pretends to give a synchronic picture of the temple.

4.1 Methodological Notes The construction of a temple represents a decisive moment in the shaping of a national identity. That is why ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions dedicated so much space to building accounts. The biblical building accounts have some distinctive features. First, the actual account of the building of the temple in Kings is relatively short (less than four chapters), whereas the narrative material on Israelite and Judean kings is far longer. Second, the biblical building account focuses mainly on measurements, materials, and techniques rather than on the orientation of the temple, thickness of the walls, and other such details.2 Third, interpreters have to take into consideration not only 1 Kgs 6‒8 but also two other canonical texts describing the temple – Chronicles and Ezekiel, not to mention the Temple Scroll and other later documents.3 Despite some controversies, the most important source of information on the temple remains 1 Kgs 6‒8.4 Yet even a cursory reading of these chapters reveals a highly convoluted text, full of grammatical problems and apparent contradictions. The situation becomes even more complex when one examines the extant textual witnesses. At first glance, the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts seem to convey a similar account of the temple, but a careful comparison brings to light significant differences between the temples of MT and LXX. Aware of these problems, scholars have done their best to reconcile the contradictory data found in the Greek and Hebrew of 1 Kgs 6‒8 with what can be gleaned from the rest of Kings, as well as from Chronicles and Ezekiel. Among the numerous books and articles that have been published, a handful of monographs constitute not only an invaluable source of materials, but also the best reconstructions of the preexilic temple so far presented.5 In this chapter, taking into Gray 1976, 157. The Chronicler, for example, dedicated much more space to the preparation for the temple, its construction, and its organization (Sweitzer 2011, 125–135). 4 A few years ago a theory was proposed that Chronicles was not directly dependent on Samuel–Kings, but that both Samuel–Kings and Chronicles drew on a common source (Auld 1994); recently, however, it has been severely attacked and is no longer followed (Kalimi 2012). 5 See the monographs of F. V. Salignac Fénelon (1904), G. A. Smith (1907), P. L.-H. Vincent and P. A.-M. Steve (1956), T. A. Busink (1970), and W. Zwickel (1999) (cf. §1.1). 2 3

4.1 Methodological Notes

111

consideration these earlier contributions, I employ a methodology that differs somewhat from those followed by previous scholars, in that it combines three approaches, namely textual criticism, historical-critical analysis, and comparative archaeology. First, most recent studies on the Septuagint have shown its undeniable value for the study of Kings.6 Thus a comparison of extant manuscripts representing various text-types is the foundation of this study. Second, I will apply historical-critical methodology. This methodology has withstood the tides and trends of biblical scholarship and its fundamental presupposition is still valid: the book of Kings is not the product of a single author but rather a stratified text that was compiled by various scribes and successively revised by editors and final redactors. In the face of apparent contradictions in the text, grammatical inconcinnities, differences in vocabulary, and interruptions in the flow of narrative, it is impossible to conclude that 1 Kgs 6‒8 was written by a single author. Therefore, by combining the results of text-critical investigations with a literary-historical approach, I study the literary stratigraphy of 1 Kgs 6‒8. The goal, however, is not only to separate the strata of the text but also to determine whether a stratigraphic analysis of the biblical texts can expose aspects of the architectural history of the preexilic temple. Third, I consider the results of historical-critical analysis in light of the results of archaeological research. A proliferation of excavations keeping pace with the latest advances in the natural sciences continues to supply scholars with a reliable stratigraphy of excavated sites. Several scholars have recently distilled archaeological data from numerous sites into comprehensive monographs on ancient temple architecture. These manuals, along with archaeological reports from excavations in the Levant, illustrate the types of temples known in the Iron Age and other periods, providing parallels for typological analysis and the discernment of trends in temple construction. Due to the variety of temples unearthed in the Levant, however, temples from other sites cannot be used to determine the layout and form of the temple of Jerusalem. For this reason any reconstruction of the preexilic temple carried out before excavations of the Temple Mount have taken place must remain heavily dependent on the interpretation of the biblical texts. In sum, a thorough examination of the biblical texts in all extant manuscripts and the application of multiple methods – text-critical, historical-critical, and archaeological – is a sine qua non for the reconstruction of the preexilic temple. Nevertheless, some illustrative examples from the Near East, mostly Syria-Palestine, will be introduced to demonstrate in what ways the layout of a temple might be modified. I will present mostly examples from the Iron Age, which are more pertinent for our study. Only rarely will I refer to Bronze Age temples.

6 See, for example, Schenker 2004, 2012; Joosten 2012; Lust 2012; Torijano Morales 2012; Trebolle Barrera 2012; Markschies 2013; Kratz and Neuschäfer 2013; and Kraus et al. 2014.

112

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

4.2 Architectural Terminology Diachronic textual analysis, including the separation of the original strata from later glosses, has assumed different forms over the past two hundred years. In this section, I will examine the technical vocabulary used in 1 Kgs 6–8, which includes many terms whose precise meaning is uncertain. For example, the innermost part of the temple is referred to as “the house,” “the inner house,” “the debir,” “the debir of the house,” “the Holy of Holies,” “the house of the Holy of Holies,” “the Holy,” and so on. Such an assortment of terms raises questions: Do all these terms come from the same period? Do they represent different phases of technical terminology? Were some technical terms preferred in one period and later replaced by others? In the following sections, I will individuate the most ancient and the most recent terms for the innermost part of the temple (§4.2.1), and I will examine the architectural significance of the term hekal and its theological resonance in 1 Kgs 6:17b (§4.2.2). 4.2.1 Old and New Names for the Innermost Part of the Temple Out of the wide range of terms used to describe the innermost part of the temple,7 I focus on the phrases “the inner house” and “the Holy of Holies.” I argue that the former represents the most ancient term, whereas the latter is of a later date. The inner house The term ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫“ ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬the inner house” is often overlooked in scholarly writings. The term ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ ְּפנ‬occurs thirty-two times in the Bible. It is a masculine adjective derived from ‫ּפנֶ ה‬/‫ים‬ ָ ִ‫“ ָּפנ‬front” or, in a figurative sense, “identity.”8 In 1 Kgs 6–8 the adjective describes twice the inner court of the temple (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12) and twice the inner house of the temple (1 Kgs 6:27; 7:50).9 This term is usually identified with the term debir, on the basis of 1 Kgs 6:23 and 6:27. According to the former verse, the cherubs were in the debir; according to the latter, the cherubs were in “the inner house.” Since it was believed that the cherubs were in the innermost part of the temple, it is logical that the biblical text identifies the “inner house” with the debir.10 First Kings 8:6 states that the priests brought the ark “to its place, to the debir of the temple, to the Holy of Holies, under the wings of the cherubs.” Putting together the evidence of all three verses regarding the location of the cherubs and the ark, commentators have followed the clear-cut logic of the final redaction of the text: the inner house is identical with the debir DeVries 2003, 94. Simian-Yofre 2001, 11:594–595. 9 Cf. its similar meaning in Esther and Ezekiel. 10 Provan 1997, 66–67; Cogan 2001, 245. On the problems of this identification, see Mulder 1998, 270–271. 7 8

4.2 Architectural Terminology

113

and the Holy of Holies. In sum, the identification of the inner house with the Holy of Holies and with the debir is a straightforward interpretation of the final redaction of the text. However reasonable this conclusion might seem, 1 Kgs 8:8 puts the reader on alert since it states that there was a problem when the ark was placed in the debir.12 Its poles were too long and did not fit inside the debir, and thus this verse raises the question of where the ark was originally kept. As we have just seen, the statements about the location of the cherubs in the inner house and in the debir raise a similar question with respect to the different layers of the text (cf. §4.8). Therefore, we can rightly ask whether the identification of “the inner house” with the debir and the Holy of Holies reflects the original text or marks a later development. Before drawing any conclusions about the term “the inner house,” let us investigate 1 Kgs 7:50b: ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ימי ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים ְל ַד ְל ֵתי ַה ַּביִת ַל ֵה‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַהּפֹתֹות ְל ַד ְלתֹות ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ‫זָ ָהב‬, lit. “(Solomon made) the sockets13 for the doors of the inner house, for the Holy of Holies, for the doors of the house, for the hekal, (of) gold.”14 The syntax of this verse is anything but clear, especially due to the fourfold repetition of the preposition ‫ל‬, translated above mechanically with for but susceptible of different meanings and functions, including marking the objects of verbs. How should this verse be interpreted? The Greek versions (3 Kgdms 7:36b) did not translate the four occurrences of the preposition ‫ ל‬directly; rather, they are reflected in the assignment of grammatical cases to four nouns: three genitive forms (in gray) and one accusative form (underlined). 11





‫ וְ ַהּפֹתֹות‬ ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ ל ַד ְלתֹות ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ְ ‫ לק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬ ְ ‫ ל ַד ְל ֵתי ַה ַּביִת‬ ְ ‫יכל זָ ָהב‬ ָ ‫ ל ֵה‬ ַ

καὶ τὰ θυρώματα τῶν θυρῶν τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἐσωτάτου ἁγίου τῶν ἁγίων καὶ τὰς θύρας τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ναοῦ χρυσᾶς

Whereas in MT the four prepositional phrases are all modifying the single accusative ‫הּפֹתֹות‬, ַ LXX imposes some order on v. 36b by inserting a καί before “doors of the house” where MT has no ‫ ו‬and making “the doors” an explicitly accusative form. As a result 3 Kgdms 7:36b contains two objects (underlined) and a series of genitives (italicized):

Mulder 1998, 270–271; Cogan 2001, 245. Most likely under the influence of Exod 25:15 and 26:34 (Gray 1976, 210). 13 Commonly translated “the sockets of the door wings of the interior of the Holy of Holies” (Mulder 1998, 370). See also Noth 1968, 143. 14 NAS: “and the hinges both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, that is, of the nave, of gold”; NRSV: “the sockets for the doors of the innermost part of the house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the nave of the temple, of gold”; TNK: “and the hinge sockets for the doors of the innermost part of the House, the Holy of Holies, and for the doors of the Great Hall of the House, of gold.” 11

12

114

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

(Solomon made) of gold the panels of the doors of the innermost part of the house of the Holy of Holies and the doors of the sanctuary.

One way to overcome the difficulties of the second part of the verse in MT is to change the word order and to translate “for the doors of the nave of the temple”15 or simply to eliminate some words from the verse.16 Seeing these difficulties, most translations and commentators take the first and third occurrences of ‫ ל‬as markers of attribution (“for”) linked to the direct object ‫ ַהּפֹתֹות‬and the second and fourth occurrences of ‫ ל‬as explicative in nature and not genitival (“of”):17 ‫ לק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬ ְ ‫יכל זָ ָהב‬ ָ ‫ ל ֵה‬ ַ

‫ל־ה ֵּכ ִלים‬ ַ ‫‬את ָּכ‬ ֵ ‪‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ְׁשֹלמֹה‬‎ 48 ... ‫וְ ַהּפֹתֹות‬‎ 50b ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ְל ַד ְלתֹות ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ‫ְל ַד ְל ֵתי ַה ַּביִת‬

48 Solomon made all the vessels … 50band the sockets for the doors of the inner house, i.e., (of) the Holy of Holies, (and sockets) for the doors of the house, i.e., (of) the hekal, (of) gold.

This interpretation invites us to ask whether the explicative notes (“for the …” and “i.e. …”) are later additions or part of the original text. B. Stade suggested that the original text read ‫(“ וְ ַהּפֹתֹות ַה ַּביִת זָ ָהב‬he made) the sockets of the temple of gold.” In his view ‫ימי ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬ ִ ִ‫ ְל ַד ְלתֹות ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬as well as ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫“ ַל ֵה‬i.e., the hekal” are later additions.18 M. Cogan and H. Tadmor elaborated this theory and proposed considering the phrases ‫ ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬and ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ַל ֵה‬as glosses that clarified the words ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ ַה ַּביִ ת ַה ְּפנ‬and ‫ ַה ַּביִת‬respectively.19 Consequently the inner house (‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫)ה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ַ is identified with the Holy of Holies (‫ )ק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬and the house (‫)ה ַּביִת‬ ַ is identified with the hekal (‫יכל‬ ָ ‫)ה‬. ֵ 20 The first gloss, the phrase ‫“ ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬i.e., (of) the Holy of Holies,” is a clarification of ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬. ַ 21 Consequently the inner house (‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫)ה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ַ is identified with the Holy of Holies (‫)ק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬: “(Solomon made) the sockets See TNK; Fritz 2003, 82. Mulder 1998, 302. Finally, some scholars add words to make the syntax clearer: “and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple” (Lumby 1909, 81). 17 The interpretation of the second and fourth occurrences of the preposition as explicative, however, was lost during the period when the Greek translation was produced (Stade and Schwally 1904, 97). 18 Stade and Schwally 1904, 97. Most commentators even now agree that some part of 1 Kgs 7:50 comes from a later period and was most likely influenced by Exod 25 (Hentschel 1984, 54; Fritz 2003, 86). If not the entire verse, then at least the last four words are an enhancing gloss of ancient date that later led to the supposition that the temple had golden doors (Mulder 1998, 373). 19 Cogan 2001, 270. This interpretation is based on the reading of ‫ ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬in 1 Kgs 6:16 presented above. 20 See also Šanda 1911, 198. 21 Cogan 2001, 279. 15 16

115

4.2 Architectural Terminology

for the doors of the inner house, i.e., (of) the Holy of Holies … of gold.” Thus the first gloss confirms what we noted earlier in the verses on the location of the cherubs (1 Kgs 6:23, 27; 8:6; see above), where “inner house,” debir, and “the Holy of Holies” are treated as synonyms. However, the second gloss, “(and sockets) for the doors of the house, i.e., (of) the hekal,” urges the reader to equate the temple with the hekal. This seems strange, since the hekal according to 1 Kgs 6:3 was only the nave or the main hall of the temple, and not the whole temple. But a similar identification of the hekal with the “house,” i.e., the entire temple, also appears in 1 Kgs 6:17b. I will argue below (§4.2.2) that this treatment of hekal as a synonym of “temple” was a later theological interpretation intended to align the description of the temple in 1 Kgs 6–8 with the use of hekal in 1 Samuel to refer to the ancient sanctuary in Shiloh and, in the Psalms, to refer to the temple as a whole. A similar identification of the hekal with the temple occurs also in Jer 7:4, where the hekal is a synecdoche for the whole temple. Therefore, the interpretation of the second and the fourth occurrences of ‫ ל‬as explicative glosses clarifying various architectural terms is the best solution so far advanced to the syntactical and grammatical problems of 1 Kgs 7:50. The next question to be asked concerns the antiquity of the term “the inner house.” Let us gather some data that may help us to date this phrase. The previous analysis showed that the second and fourth occurrences of ‫ ל‬in 1 Kgs 7:50 had an explicative function. Following this interpretation, “the inner house” is explained in a note as the Holy of Holies. The term “the inner house” still appears in Ezek 41:17; 42:15; cf. also Ezek 41:15 (the inner hekal). However, in Ezekiel the term describes the interior temple area23 and thus assumes a different meaning than it had in Kings. The Chronicler completely eliminated “the inner house” from his vocabulary in favor of the terms debir and “the Holy of Holies.” Thus he changed “the inner house” of 1 Kgs 7:50 into “the inner doors” of 2 Chr 4:22: ‫יכל זָ ָהב‬ ָ ‫ימּיֹות ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים וְ ַד ְל ֵתי ַה ַּביִת ַל ֵה‬ ִ ִ‫תֹותיו ַה ְּפנ‬ ָ ‫ּופ ַתח ַה ַּביִת ַּד ְל‬. ֶ Moreover, he eliminated the first two occurrences of ‫ל‬, and the two that remain now indicate direction (“toward”). Thus the Chronicler reads “and the entrance of the temple, its inner doors (leading) to the Holy of Holies, and the temple doors (leading) to the hekal (were of) gold.” This brief investigation has shown that the term “the inner house” was used in both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of 1 Kgs 7:50; later redactors, however, felt obliged to interpret the term by adding a gloss. The term disappeared from the vocabulary of the Chronicler and in Ezekiel’s vision of the New Temple it assumed a different nuance. Accordingly, I suggest that “the inner house” was a preexilic designation for the inner part of the temple. The two occurrences of “the inner house” in 1 Kgs 6:27 and 7:50 show that already in 1 Kings additional 22

22 23

Šanda 1911, 198. Block 1998, 568; Zimmerli 1983, 387.

116

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

notes were necessary to clarify this term in relation to other terms more commonly used in descriptions of the interior of the temple. The additional notes identified the inner house with the debir, the place where the cherubs were located (1 Kgs 6:23, 27), or with both the debir and the Holy of Holies, the place where the ark was kept (1 Kgs 7:50; 8:6). Based on this analysis I conclude that the oldest of the terms used in the description of the interior of the temple in 1 Kgs 6‒8 is “the inner house.” Later redactors identified this term with the debir and the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies The term ‫“ ק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬the Holy of Holies” occurs in 1 Kgs 6‒8 only three times (1 Kgs 6:16;24 7:50; 8:6).25 In these three verses, however, the phrase plays a secondary role. In 1 Kgs 7:50 it is a gloss explaining the term “the inner house,” and in 1 Kgs 8:6 it is the last of the three locatives specifying the location of the ark, assuring the reader that the ark was in the debir, i.e., in the Holy of Holies (cf. above).26 Whereas this term plays only a secondary role in 1 Kgs 6‒8, it became an important part of the temple accounts in later periods. Chronicles does not contain the term debir but introduces a new term: “the house of the Holy of Holies” (2 Chr 3:5–9). Similarly, the innermost sanctuary in Ezek 41:4 is called “the Holy of Holies.” This term became a common designation of the temple and its innermost shrine in the postexilic period (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65). Besides the description of the temple, the term is frequently used of the tabernacle, mainly in the Priestly sections of the Pentateuch (cf. Exod 26:33).27 Studies on holiness in ancient Israel have demonstrated that the terms ‫ק ֶֹדׁש‬ “holy” and the construct chain ‫“ ק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬the holy of holies” communicated various levels of holiness. “Holy” and “the holy of holies” could be used to mark a place or an object as relatively less or more holy, or even as the most holy object or place in a given realm. In the context of the temple, “the holy of holies” originally indicated that a certain area within the temple was endowed with the highest level of holiness. Only secondarily did the term come to name an architectural part of the temple, however – “the Holy of Holies.” The recognition of gradations of holiness reflects predominantly the theology of the postexilic

For the interpretation of this verse, see §4.5.2. Its equivalent ‫“ ַהּק ֶֹדׁש‬the Holy,” referring to the temple or to its innermost part, occurs in 1 Kgs 8:8, 10. In the rest of Kings neither of these two forms is used in reference to the temple. The authors and redactors of the other chapters of Kings used the two forms to describe objects or people connected with the temple (cf., for example, 1 Kgs 15:12, 15). 26 The term “the Holy of Holies” represents one of the few elements in the text which almost all interpreters identify as a later addition; see, for example, Burney 1903, 71; Gray 1976, 168, 202, 208; Würthwein 1977, 60, 85; and Hentschel 1984, 45. 27 Fritz 1977, 1–12, 165–166; Japhet 2003, 51–52; Klein 2012, 49. 24 25

4.2 Architectural Terminology

117

period. This almost universally accepted conclusion is of great relevance to the present study, because it confirms that the identification of the innermost part of the temple with the Holy of Holies is a later gloss aimed at harmonizing the temple narrative in 1 Kgs 6‒8 with the Priestly theology reflected in the narrative of the desert tabernacle.29 To sum up, the rich technical vocabulary used to describe the temple developed over time. The earliest term used for the innermost part of the temple in 1 Kgs 6‒8 was “the inner house.” The use of the term “the Holy of Holies” to describe the innermost part of the temple was a relatively recent development. The two terms make it possible to identify the most ancient literary stratum and the most recent glosses in 1 Kgs 6‒8. 28

4.2.2 Architectural and Theological Dimensions of hekal Another important word that sheds light on the development of the terminology of 1 Kgs 6‒8 is hekal. In this section, I will focus on 1 Kgs 6:17, ‫וְ ַא ְר ָּב ִעים ָּב ַא ָּמה‬ ‫יכל ִל ְפנָ י‬ ָ ‫היָ ה ַה ָּביִת הּוא ַה ֵה‬, ָ lit. “And forty in cubit(s) was the house, it was the temple before me.” M. J. Mulder voiced the perplexity of scholars regarding this verse: “Virtually all modern commentators are agreed that there is something wrong with MT of this and the following verses.”30 In order to untie the knots in this verse, most translations and commentaries prefer to follow B and Ant., which omit vv. 18–19 and read “in front of the inner sanctuary (debir)” in place of the problematic ‫ִל ְפנָ י‬ (cf. §4.5.2).31 Consequently the ‫ לפני‬in v. 17b should not be vocalized as ‫ ִל ְפנָ י‬but ‫ל ְפנֵ י‬,ִ forming the construct chain ‫ל ְפנֵ י ַה ְּד ִביר‬,ִ as in v. 20. Thus the Urtext of 1 Kgs 6:17 read: ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ל ְפנֵ י ַה ְּד ִביר וְ ַא ְר ָּב ִעים ָּב ַא ָּמה ָהיָ ה ַה ָּביִת הּוא ַה ֵה‬,ִ lit. “Forty in cubit(s) was the house, i.e., the nave, in front of the debir.”32 Scholars have also advanced variants of this interpretation.33 Thus M. Cogan suggested replacing the problematic ‫ לפני‬with ‫“( לפניו‬in front of it”). The final ‫ ו‬according to him was lost through haplography, as v. 18 begins with ‫וְ ֶא ֶרז‬. Following other scholars, Cogan connected v. 17 with v. 20 and considered vv. 18–19 a later insertion.34 S. J. DeVries similarly translated “with forty cubits remaining in front of it.”35 TNK construes ‫ לפני‬along with ‫ ַה ָּביִת‬as a reference to For more detailed studies, see Haran 1977; Jenson 1992; George 2009; and Hundley 2011, 2013. 29 Burney 1903, 71; Barnes 1908, 50; Montgomery 1951, 150; Gray 1976, 169. 30 Mulder 1998, 257. 31 See TOB, NAS, NRSV, etc. See also Thenius 1873, 69; Šanda 1911, 125; Schlögl 1911, 44; Montgomery 1951, 154; Fichtner and Fricke 1964, 101; Hentschel 1984, 45; Mulder 1998, 227; and Fritz 2003, 67. 32 Noth 1968, 100; Würthwein 1977, 60; Mulder 1998, 257–258. 33 For a slightly different version of this interpretation, see Sweeney 2007, 113. 34 Cogan 2001, 235, 242. 35 DeVries 2003, 88. 28

118

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

the front part of the temple: “The front part of the temple, that is, the Great Hall, measured 40 cubits.” There are three problems with these interpretations. First, most scholars consider MT to be corrupt and impossible to interpret in its present form. Hence they emend the text by eliminating parts of the verse or repointing words. Second, all interpretations try to harmonize the dimensions of the temple in vv. 2, 17, and 20. Thus the figure of “forty cubits” in v. 17 is regarded as the difference obtained after subtracting twenty cubits, the length of the inner shrine (cf. v. 20), from the total length of the temple, sixty cubits (cf. v. 2).36 Third, interpreters assume that the semantic value of the term ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬is the same throughout 1 Kgs 6–8. Since in 1 Kgs 6:3, 5, 33; 7:21, 50 the term ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬means “nave,” i.e., the main room of the temple in front of the debir, commentators conclude that the term ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬in 6:17b likewise refers to the main room of the temple. Given these difficulties, it is worth returning to the MT of v. 17b and considering it afresh. Nave or temple: Architectural note or theological statement? Indeed, the starting point of most interpretations of 1 Kgs 6:17, the assumption that the end of the verse is corrupt, has been called into question. In his detailed study of this verse, D. Barthélemy showed that the vocalization ‫ל ְפ ָ֫ני‬,ִ a pausal form of ‫ל ָפנַ י‬,ְ is attested in Theodotius and Aquila and concludes that without any doubt the expression ‫יכל ִל ְפנָ י‬ ָ ‫ הּוא ַה ֵה‬should be considered the lectio difficilior.37 In support of Barthélemy’s opinion we can adduce the fact that MT has added the words “this house,” which are not present in B (“and forty cubits was the hekal along the front”). This addition bolsters the lectio difficilior of MT, if it is assumed that the words were introduced to clarify a text that was already perceived as difficult and are not a gloss added in an attempt to repair a corrupt text. Examining 1 Kgs 6:17 in its broader context leads to an alternative explanation of the verse that does not require emending the difficult form ‫ל ְפנָ י‬.ִ The MT of 1 Kgs 6:15–22 is longer than the corresponding passage in the Greek tradition (3 Kgdms 6:16–21; cf. §4.5). This, however, is not the only difference between MT and B/Ant. The latter witnesses also omit the theological section in 1 Kgs 6:11–13. These differences show that the logic and organization of MT is different from that of B/Ant. In the theological section 1 Kgs 6:11–13, unique to MT, God speaks in the first-person singular. A few verses later, the first-person singular appears again in the Masoretic vocalization of 1 Kgs 6:17b’s ‫“ ִל ְפנָ י‬in front of me.” The MT thus inserts two passages in the first-person singular (1 Kgs 6:11–13, 17b). This peculiarity of MT, in contrast to B/Ant., should be respected in our analysis of the Hebrew text. Therefore I suggest reading the problematic expression ‫ ִל ְפנָ י‬not in the spatial sense (“before / in front of me”), but in a figurative sense, as it is often used in the Bible, especially in connection with the Lord, 36 37

Jones 1984, 168; Nobile 2010, 83; Zamora García 2011, 156. Barthélemy 1982, 342–343. Similarly Godding 1967, 172.

4.2 Architectural Terminology

119

i.e., “according to the opinion of, in the view of” (cf. Gen 10:9; Exod 29:25; Deut ָ ‫ ֵ ה‬/ in my view 24:4).38 Hence the verse can be translated, “according to me it is ‫יכל‬ it is ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵ ה‬/ I consider it ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה‬.” ֵ This interpretation of v. 17b in its narrative context presumes that the biblical writers silently changed the focalization, or the point of view from which information is being presented, as they did explicitly in 1 Kgs 6:11–13, when they introduced a report of “the word of the Lord to Solomon.” The omniscient narrator shifted from external (or third-person) into internal (or first-person) focalization to represent what the main character – God – thinks.39 Consequently, 1 Kgs 6:17b does not continue the description of the layout of the temple in v. 17a but presents how God perceived the house built by Solomon. Thus 1 Kgs 6:17b is not an architectural comment but rather a theological comment by the biblical writers,40 who evaluated the House (‫)ּביִת‬ ַ as being theologically equivalent to the Temple (‫יכל‬ ָ ‫)ה‬. ֵ Using the technique of shifting narrative focalization, they presented their assessment not as their own judgment but as the judgment of God. This reading, I believe, can explain better the problematic identification of the ‫ ַּביִת‬with the ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה‬, ֵ on the one hand, while maintaining the lectio difficilior, on the other hand (cf. §4.2.1). Why was the house identified with the hekal? Before we study the theological meaning of the term hekal in v. 17b, let us present a short review of the study of this lemma. Hebrew ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬is ultimately a loanword from Sumerian é-gal, meaning “large/great house,” perhaps of proto-Sumerian origin.41 The word é-gal was translated into Akkadian as bītu rabû “big/great house” or transliterated as ēkallu.42 Cognates of ēkallu occur in ten Semitic languages, proving that the term became a generally accepted loanword in the Levant.43 When the term passed into Hebrew, it acquired three meanings: “palace,” “temple,” and “main hall (of a temple).”44 The original meaning of the word was “palace”; when used outside the context of Judah and Jerusalem, ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬refers exclusively to royal palaces. The shift from palace to temple was not an unusual semantic shift since a temple was also considered to be a dwelling – the palace of a god. The secondary meaning of the word, “temple,” practically became its primary meaning.45 In this sense ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬refers to three Israelite sanctuaries: the HALOT 2:942b; BDB 817a. Ska 1990, 66–67. 40 Similar comments are found in the divine speech in vv. 11–13 and in the narrative in v. 16 (equating the debir with the Holy of Holies); cf. also “And (Solomon) built the house and finished it” in vv. 9 and 14, which functions as a literary/theological marker. 41 Müller 1980, 4:382–383. 42 AHw 1:191–193. 43 In Ugaritic as hkl and in Phoenician as ‫ ;הכל‬for other forms, see HAHw 2:274. 44 DCH 2:541–542; BDB 228–229; HAHw 2:274. 45 Dreier 2004, 211–212. 38 39

120

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

shrine in Shiloh (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3) and the first (Jer 7:4; 24:1) and second temples in Jerusalem (Ezra 3:10; Hag 2:18).46 A survey of the occurrences of the term hekal that refer to these sanctuaries can elucidate why the biblical writers needed to insert this theological comment in the midst of the building account. The pentateuchal sources completely avoid the term. It first appears in texts describing the premonarchic period, where it designates the pre-Solomonic shrine in Shiloh (1 Sam 1:9; 3:347).48 In these two cases the hekal is the dwelling place of God, called the hekal of the Lord (‫יכל‬ ַ ‫ֵה‬ ‫)יְ הוָ ה‬. The usage of the term in 1 Samuel makes clear that the term ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה‬, ֵ understood as the hekal of the Lord (‫יכל יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫)ה‬, ֵ was a parallel term for the house of the Lord (‫)ּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ in Shiloh, mentioned in 1 Sam 1:7, 24; 3:15. The term described a real dwelling of the Lord, since the ark was deposited there.49 Following the references to the ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬in Shiloh, the term ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬then virtually disappears from Samuel–Kings until its reappearance in the accounts of the reigns of Hezekiah (727–698 BCE; 2 Kgs 18:16), Josiah (639–609 BCE; 2 Kgs 23:4), and Jehoiakim (608–598 BCE; 2 Kgs 24:13).50 In Chronicles it appears slightly earlier, in Uzziah’s reign (785–733 BCE; 2 Chr 26:16).51 This indicates that the biblical writers connected the term ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬with the pre-Solomonic period and then with later kings. The narratives about Israel set between the time of Samuel and the time of Hezekiah in Kings (Uzziah in Chronicles) do not use this term but prefer the term “house.”52 The temple building accounts (1 Kgs 6–8; 2 Chr 3–4) never use the construct form ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫;ה‬ ֵ when a construct phrase is used of the temple, it is ‫( ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬‭1 Kgs 6:37; 7:12; cf. also 6:1). The term hekal is often used by the Psalmists to speak of the abode of God (Pss 5:8; 11:4; 18:7 // 2 Sam 22:7; 27:4; 29:9; 48:10; 65:5; 68:30; 79:1; 138:253). The terminology in Psalms, however, is a bit different from that used in the hisIn all occurrences it refers to the temple of the Lord; only in Ezra 5:14–15 does it refer to a Babylonian temple, but these verses contradict 2 Chr 36:7. According to L. Dreier (2004, 216–218), Chronicles reports the speech of Jewish representatives who returned from exile. In their language, the meaning “temple” was dominant, whereas for the “enemies of Judah and Benjamin” (i.e., the Samaritans), the earlier meaning “palace” was reserved as the primary one (cf. Ezra 4:14). In the case of Ezra 5:14 this could be considered the Esagil, the temple of Marduk in Babylon. 47 The translation of this term varies: “temple” (NRSV), “vestibule,” or “nave”; see Klein 1983, 33. 1 Sam 2:22b refers to the “tent of meeting” at Shiloh, but this half-verse is missing from 4QSama and the Old Greek. 48 The hekal of Shiloh was a shrine with doorposts, near which the priest Eli used to sit. A temple servant, Samuel, slept in the hekal and the ark of the Lord rested in it (1 Sam 3:3). 49 Müller 1980, 4:386. 50 We exclude here 2 Sam 22:7, which is discussed below with the psalms. 51 See also 2 Chr 27:2; 29:16; Ezra 3:6, 10; 4:1. Neh 6:10–11 mentions only ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה ֵה‬, ַ generating a heated discussion among exegetes about its meaning. 52 The term ‫ ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬is preferred in Kings and Ezra; in Chronicles the terms ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֵּבית ָה ֱא‬and ‫ ֵּבית־ק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬or their equivalents also appear. 53 In Pss 45:16, 18; 138:2, the term ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬describes a palace. 46

4.2 Architectural Terminology

121

torical books. The phrase ‫יכל יְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ֵה‬does not occur in the book of Psalms, where ‫יכל ָק ְד ֶׁשָך‬ ַ ‫“ ֵה‬the temple of your holiness” (or “your holy temple”) is preferred (Pss 5:8; 11:4 ‭[‫ ;]ֵהיַכל ָק ְדׁשֹו‬79:1; 138:2). Elsewhere the psalmists used ‫ ֵהיַכל‬with suffixes (‫ֵהיַכלֹו‬, 18:7; 27:4; 29:9; ‫ֵהיָכֶלָך‬, 48:10; 65:5; 68:30). For our purposes, I divide the occurrences of this term in Psalms into two groups. The first group uses the term to refer to the temple of Jerusalem as the site where human liturgical or cultic activity takes place; in the second group, the association with the earthly temple of Jerusalem is not exclusive, and the term can be interpreted in a theological register as referring to both a heavenly temple and an earthly temple. Cultic meaning In a few cases the term hekal directly (Pss 68:30; 79:1) or indirectly (Pss 27:4; 48:10; 65:5) refers to the temple in Jerusalem. These psalms present the temple as a place of supreme joy. Of particular importance is Ps 48. It invites the audience to contemplate the goodness of the Lord in his hekal (Ps 48:10) and to stage a procession around Jerusalem (Ps 48:13–15). The psalm should be interpreted as a part of a larger liturgy or ritual that might have started in the temple and then moved around the city.54 According to the theological geography of this psalm, the temple is the most sublime space not only in Jerusalem but in the entire world.55 This is the reason for the astonishment of the kings of the rest of the world (Ps 48:5–9). Hence to dwell in the temple all the days of one’s life was the supreme desire of the psalmist (Ps 27:4). In other words, happy are those who dwell there (Ps 65:5). A similar cultic coloring can also be noticed in Ps 68.56 Verses 25–31 describe a solemn procession that according to some exegetes refers to Hezekiah’s cultic reform.57 The description of this procession culminates in vv. 29–30.58 Thus we can say that the psalms that use hekal to refer directly or indirectly to the temple of Jerusalem presupposed the cultic dimension of the temple and underlined the importance of processions and other cultic activities concentrated around the temple.

Craigie 1983, 248. Palmer 1965, 357. 56 Exegetes have interpreted Ps 68 in various ways. Some consider it to be a series of completely disconnected parts, while others try to connect the parts by positing God’s salvation as their common theme (Tate 1990, 185). A broader consensus has formed around the idea that the various sections of the psalm reflect various moments in Israelite history (Jacquet 1977, 337–338; Hossfeld et al. 2005, 162). 57 Ravasi 1985b, 369. 58 The entire strophe (Ps 68:29–32) is a petition asking God to demonstrate his glory over Jerusalem, but it has also a political character, i.e., tribute should regularly be brought to the temple (Hossfeld et al. 2005, 369). 54 55

122

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Theological meaning In the second group of Psalms (Pss 5:8; 11:4; 18:7 = 2 Sam 22:7; 29:9; 138:2) the term hekal does refer clearly to the temple, but in these cases a connection with a heavenly temple is also directly or indirectly implied. According to G. Ravasi, by using this term the psalmists conveyed a close relation between the heavenly and the earthly abode of God. God is in heaven sitting on his throne, but his sanctuary is on earth. A vertical line connects the heavenly and the earthly temples of God (Pss 29 and 68).59 This poetic language thus allows the reader to imagine the heavenly hekal (cf. Ps 18:6 with vv. 14 and 16) as an abode of God.60 Psalm 11 also draws a very fine line between the heavenly throne and the temple, and so some exegetes consider hekal in Ps 11:4 to be the heavenly temple, while others view it as the earthly temple. Similarly ambiguous is Ps 29, where the context of the term hekal permits it to be interpreted as the terrestrial or heavenly abode of God.61 To explain this ambiguity, A. Weiser62 suggested that God is simultaneously present in heaven and in his earthly sanctuary through the process of epiphany (cf. Ps 68:4).63 Other scholars, in order to explain how God is both in heaven and at the same time present among his people in his earthly sanctuary, employed scholastic terminology and spoke about the immanent and transcendent dimensions of God.64 Finally, O. Loretz was the first to point to the importance of Ps 11:4, ֹ‫יכל ָק ְדׁשֹו יְ הוָ ה ַּב ָּׁש ַמיִם ִּכ ְסאו‬ ַ ‫“ יְ הוָ ה ְּב ֵה‬The Lord is in his holy temple; his throne is in heaven,” which stands at the center of the psalm. This notion presupposed an old idea about the simultaneous presence of God in his heavenly and earthly sanctuaries. In the broader ancient Near Eastern tradition, a god’s presence in his earthly temple was guaranteed by a statue of the deity.65 God’s presence in his heavenly and earthly hekal had important consequences for his people. The psalms conveying this idea employed the term hekal in the context of enemies attacking the righteous ones.66 The enemies were much more than physical enemies, as described in Ps 18:5–6: “Ropes of Death encompassed me; torrents of Belial terrified me; ropes of Sheol encircled me; snares of Death confronted me.” Thus the enemies are amplified, to the point where they include all enemies imaginable. With P. Craigie we can conclude that by such an amplifiRavasi 1985a, 234, 237. Briggs and Briggs 1907, 142; Dahood 1966, 123; Zlotowitz and Rozenberg 1999, 94. 61 Craigie 1983, 248. 62 Weiser 1962, 156. 63 Or as a theophany (Kraus 1988, 261). 64 Craigie 1983, 133. 65 Loretz 1994, 260. 66 Ps 18 (= 2 Sam 22), provides a helpful literary context that allows the reader to imagine the range of enemies opposed to the righteous ones (Ps 18:1). David, to whom this psalm is attributed, had to face Goliath and the Philistines, a mad Saul and his troops, his own son Absalom, and even wild animals (Maré 2010, 101). 59 60

4.2 Architectural Terminology

123

cation of the enemy theme, the enemy has been given a cosmic dimension. This cosmic dimension was achieved by the utilization of language that is deeply rooted in ancient Near Eastern mythology.67 Facing these superhuman enemies, the psalmist can only call upon the Lord. Even though the foundations of the earth might be shaken, the presence of God among his people and on his throne in heaven was the guarantee that the Lord reigned, even when the enemy attacked. The presence of God in his holy temple and on his throne was the motivation for people’s cries for help and later for their shouts of thanksgiving after being saved. Thus the central message of these psalms is either a plea for God’s help or an expression of thanksgiving to God, who saved the righteous ones.68 God listens to the prayer of the just one and intervenes as a warrior god who fights on behalf of his covenant partners. When God appears in his full anger, nothing and no one can resist.69 God mobilizes all heavenly and earthly elements to defeat the wicked (Ps 11:6).70 The movement of God descending from heaven, where he heard the voice of his people, in order to intervene on behalf of the just is usually identified with a theophany.71 The result of this battle is the salvation of the just (cf. Ps 18:18–20). The poetic language used to describe the salvation of the just is much more than a report. It serves to stimulate the imagination, to evoke an alternative reality of new possibilities that transcends what is experienced in times of crisis.72 In conclusion, one of the most disputed verses in 1 Kgs 6 is v. 17b.73 The Hebrew text preserved in MT is generally emended following B and Ant. In this section I argued that MT follows its own path and therefore the lectio difficilior should be maintained. Similar to God’s words in 1 Kgs 6:11–13, v. 17b also represents a theological statement expressed in the first-person singular. Thus MT can be interpreted: I (God) consider it (this house built by Solomon) to be the Temple (hekal). The addition implies that the temple of Solomon was the hekal of God. The etymology of hekal and its occurrences in Psalms show that hekal conveys two meanings. In its liturgical sense, hekal communicates the idea of the temple as the center of liturgical celebration. Thus, when the biblical writers allow God to say, “I consider this house to be the hekal,” they claim that the temple serves not simply as the setting for a local festival but as the focus of a liturgical Craigie 1983, 97. For the Ugaritic background of this psalm, see Dahood 1966, 122–123. For example, the part describing the crisis (Ps 18:4–7) culminates in the psalmist’s cry and in the response of the Lord from his ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫( ֵה‬cf. Maré 2010, 101). 69 Maré 2010, 99. 70 An even more dramatic response is depicted in Ps 18 (= 2 Sam 22) (Kraus 1988, 261). After God hears the voice of the psalmist, the entire world is mobilized (Ps 18:8–16). The vindication of the just bears all the features of a theophany (Gerstenberger 1988, 97; Maré 2010, 107). The reason for such a cosmic vindication is described in Ps 29, where God is presented in terms of Canaanite mythology (Avishur 1994, 39–110). 71 Kraus 1988, 261. 72 Maré 2010, 110–111. 73 Cf. the analysis of 1 Kgs 7:50 in §4.5.2. 67 68

124

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

celebration that extends throughout the entire universe. In its theological sense, hekal points to the real presence of God in the earthly temple while relating it to God’s heavenly abode. The simultaneous presence of God in both his heavenly and earthly temples is the guarantee of salvation for his people when they are exposed to the attacks of enemies. This concept builds upon the martial aspects of God, understood in terms of the Canaanite religion as the god of storms and warfare. When the biblical writers allow God to say “I consider this house to be the hekal,” they convey a theological assessment of Solomon’s temple, namely that God, especially God-as-warrior, is present in this house and will defend his people against his enemies. Such an assessment of the temple is clearly different from those expressed in 1 Kgs 6:11–13 (God’s presence is contingent upon the people’s fidelity to the commandments) and 8:27–31 (the theology of the divine name). The hekal as the main hall of the temple The previous analysis showed that the term hekal in 1 Kgs 6:17b is an insertion that, together with vv. 11–13, presented the biblical editors’ theological assessment of the temple. A survey of the term hekal in the so-called historical books (cf. above) showed that its distribution is limited; it is one of two terms for the shrine in Shiloh and afterwards appears only in the accounts of the reigns of eighth- and seventh-century kings (Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Jehoiakim). It was also used after the exile as one of the names for the second temple. In these cases, in particular in the expression “the hekal of the Lord,” it referred to the whole temple.74 However, in the building accounts it refers to the main hall of the temple. In 1 Kgs 6:3 hekal describes that part of the temple in front of which the ulam stood (cf. 1 Kgs 7:21). According to 1 Kgs 6:5 the temple had two parts: the hekal and the debir (cf. also 1 Kgs 6:31–33). This usage of the term hekal points to the familiar ancient Near Eastern tripartite temple plan, in which the hekal was the central part between the debir and the ulam. To assign a relative date to the conception of the temple in Jerusalem as a tripartite temple consisting of a debir, hekal, and ulam, we may observe that debir was used to interpret the term “the inner house” (cf. above). Moreover, all three terms are used frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible. Later the debir would be reinterpreted as “the Holy of Holies,” as in Chronicles. This indicates that the terms debir, hekal, and ulam are younger than the term “the inner house,” but older than the term “the Holy of Holies.” Naturally this conclusion does not exclude the possibility that the usage of these terms partially overlapped.

74

See also Jer 7:4; 24:1.

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

125

4.2.3 Conclusion This investigation has given us some tools to differentiate the strata of the building account. I argued that the most ancient term used in the description of the temple is “the inner house.” This term was interpreted by later editors as referring to the innermost part of the temple (the debir and later the Holy of Holies). The term of most recent origin is “the Holy of Holies.” This term was originally an expression for speaking about the highest level, or a relatively high level, of holiness, and later became a designation for the innermost part of the temple. The term “the Holy of Holies” designates the innermost portion of Solomon’s temple using terminology familiar from the Priestly strata in particular, linking the temple to the desert tabernacle. I also argued that in 1 Kgs 6:17b, hekal has a theological meaning. It looks back to the temple of Shiloh, suggesting continuity with the earlier shrine, and resonates with the account of the temple in the Psalms. It describes the temple as God’s dwelling place. In turn, the earthly temple reflects God’s heavenly abode. In later psalmic tradition, hekal referred to the temple of Jerusalem as the center of cultic activities. In the building narratives (1 Kgs 6–7; 2 Chr 3–4; Ezek 41–42), the term hekal assumed a technical meaning and referred to the main hall of the temple. This technical term became closely associated with the terms debir and “the Holy of Holies.” Since the term debir was later replaced by “the Holy of Holies” in Chronicles, the triad debir‒hekal‒ulam represents an earlier phase of technical terminology.

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure In the building narrative, 1 Kgs 6:5–10 attributes to Solomon a complex structure surrounding the temple, introducing it as the yaṣiaʿ (v. 5).75 The biblical texts studied in Chapter 3, however, showed that chambers, houses, and other structures were gradually attached to the temple or added to its courts. The tension between these accounts will be investigated in this chapter. I will try to determine whether the description of the yaṣiaʿ in 1 Kgs 6 corresponds to a coherent system of architectural features that surrounded the temple at a certain moment in its history, or whether the biblical text contains different strata that might reveal changes in the structure (or structures) exterior to the temple itself.

In the following discussion, the transliteration yaṣiaʿ refers to the Solomonic structure as it is presented in 1 Kgs 6:5–10, read synchronically as a cohesive unit. The Hebrew form ‫ יצוע‬is used where the text is approached from a critical or diachronic perspective. 75

126

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

4.3.1 Unresolved Questions The description of the yaṣiaʿ (1 Kgs 6:5–10) contains numerous syntactical, textual, and semantic problems.76 Indeed, the word ‫( היצוע‬v. 6) itself poses the first problem of a lexical nature. The expected vocalization would be ‫צּוע‬ ַ ָ‫( ַהּי‬cf. Gen 49:4; Pss 63:7; 132:3; Job 17:13; 1 Chr 5:1), meaning “couch” or “bed.” The Masoretes, however, assigned a qere reading to the word, ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ה ַָּי ִצ‬. ַ Thus vocalized, this word appears only in 1 Kgs 6:5, 6, 10 and its meaning is obscure.77 Besides this problem of vocalization, v. 5 is another difficult verse in the building narrative: ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ִ ‫וע ָס ִביב ֶא‬ ַ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת ַהיָ ִצ‬ ִ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ַע‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ְצ ָלעֹות ָס ִביב‬. The variety of modern translations78 illustrates some syntactical and lexical difficulties the reader must face: (1) What did Solomon really build, a ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬or a set of ‫?צ ָלעֹות‬ ְ Are these two terms synonyms, as talmudic tradition asserts (b. Baba Batra 61a)?79 (2) What is the object of the finite verb ‫ ?וַ ֶּיִבן‬Is it ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬or ‫ת־קירֹות‬ ִ ‫?א‬ ֶ (‭3) If the object is ‪ַ‫יָ ִצוע‬, then what is the meaning of the marker ‫?את־‬ ֶ (‎4) The verse uses the adverb ‫ ָס ִביב‬three times, but what did Solomon build the yaṣiaʿ around? (5) Why does the verse use both the plural ‫ ִקירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬and the singular ‫ ִקיר ַה ַּביִת‬when speaking about the wall(s) of the temple? Is there any difference in meaning between the singular and plural phrases? (6) In v. 6 the masculine noun ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬is modified with three feminine adjectives (‫ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬, ַ ‫ה ַּת ְחּתֹנָ ה‬, ַ and ‫יׁשית‬ ִ ‫)ה ְּׁש ִל‬ ַ and is the antecedent of feminine pronominal object suffixes. Can the noun ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬be both masculine and feminine, or is the gender disagreement the result of a simple mistake to be corrected by replacing ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬with the feminine noun ‫ה ֵּצ ָלע‬, ַ as in v. 8? The structure of 1 Kgs 6:5–10 is also problematic. First, two intervening verses (vv. 7, 9) divide the description of the yaṣiaʿ into three sections (vv. 5–6, 8, 10).80 Moreover, as mentioned above, MT uses two different terms when speaking about the structure that Solomon built: vv. 5a, 6, and 10 use ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬and ‫הּיָ ִצוע‬, ַ whereas vv. 5b and 8 use the terms ‫ ְצ ָלעֹות‬and ‫ה ֵּצ ָל ַע‬. ַ If variations in technical vocabulary are taken as a criterion for the division of the text, then the description Carreira 1969, 112–118. M. Cogan (2001, 238) suggests that the qere reading might be an attempt to distinguish between two similar yet different words. 78 NRSV: “He also built a structure against the wall of the house, running around the walls of the house, both the nave and the inner sanctuary; and he made side chambers all around.” TNK: “Against the outside wall of the House – the outside walls of the House enclosing the Great Hall and the Shrine – he built a storied structure; and he made side chambers all around.” TOB: “Il bâtit contre les murs de la Maison, tout autour, contre les murs de la grande salle et ceux de la chambre sacrée, un bas-côté dont il fit des chambres annexes.” EIN: “An die Wände des Hauses, und zwar an die Wände des Hauptraums und des hinteren Raumes, legte er ringsum einen Anbau mit Kammern.” IEP: “Fabbricò pure a ridosso del muro del tempio un annesso attorno all’aula e alla cella; e vi costruì intorno degli appartamenti.” 79 Several modern scholars follow this talmudic tradition; see Cogan 2001, 238. 80 Montgomery 1951, 145–146. 76 77

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

127

of the structure surrounding the temple can be divided into five segments (vv. 6:5a, 5b, 6, 8, 10). These five segments could be grouped into two interwoven descriptions of the surrounding structure: the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-system (vv. 5a, 6, and 10) and the ‫צ ָלעֹות‬-system ְ (vv. 5b and 8). On the other hand, there are several similarities between these five segments, suggesting that vv. 5–10 might be understood as a unit: (1) Verses 6 and 8, describing both the ‫צ ָלעֹות‬ְ and ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-systems of the surrounding structure, are linked together by means of the term ‫ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬, ַ referring to the middle (floor) of the surrounding structure. Is this just a coincidence, or can we claim that v. 8 is the continuation of v. 5b, despite the fact that these verses use different terms for the surrounding structure? (2) Verses 5a and 6 use the same expression (‫)קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ to speak about the walls of the temple. (3) Verses 5 and 6 often use the adverb ‫ ָס ִביב‬which, however, does not occur in vv. 8 and 10. These links between the verses are strong enough to suggest the contrary of what was proposed at the end of the previous paragraph – that is, the segments do not belong to two different accounts of the structure attributed to Solomon but rather describe a single architectural complex. Aside from the problem of how or whether the text should be divided, the description of the yaṣiaʿ also contains some contradictions. (1) In vv. 5a and 10 the singular noun ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬names what Solomon built, suggesting that the term refers to the structure as a whole, but v. 6 applies the term to parts of the structure, referring to them as the lower, middle, and third ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬. (‭2) According to v. 6 the structure is divided into three floors, whereas in v. 8 the lowest floor is not mentioned and an entrance leads directly to the middle floor, from which it is possible to ascend to the upper floor. Is the missing floor simply an omission to be resolved by harmonizing v. 8 with v. 6, or do vv. 6 and 8 describe two different structures, one with three floors and the other with two? (3) Verses 6 and 10 speak about affixing ‪(‫ת־ה ַּביִת ַּב ֲע ֵצי ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ַ ‫ )וַ ּיֶ ֱאחֹז ֶא‬or not affixing (‫ירֹות־ה ָּביִת‬ ַ ‫)ל ִב ְל ִּתי ֲאחֹז ְּב ִק‬ ְ beams to the house. Should these seemingly contradictory expressions be harmonized at any price, or do they speak about two different things (cf. §4.6)? (4) Another problem is the overall height of the structure. Verse 10 gives the height of the yaṣiaʿ as five cubits. Does this apply to the entire structure, as vv. 5a and 10 suggest, or to the height of each floor, as implied in v. 6? In the former case the entire structure would have been a rather short annex of the temple, measuring just one-sixth as tall. In the latter case, it would have reached half the height of the temple. (5) Finally, the text uses two different verbs – ‫( וַ ֶּיִבן‬vv. 5a and 10) and ‫( וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‬v. 5b) – to describe the construction of the Solomonic yaṣiaʿ. Why would the author have found it necessary to state in two different ways that the yaṣiaʿ was built? 4.3.2 Variants and Versions Before addressing some of these questions, it might be useful to see how ancient translators dealt with these problems. The following table shows that while the

128

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Greek text-types were consistent in rendering the Hebrew words ‫צ ָלע‬/‫עֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ְצ ָל‬with πλευρά, they used three different words to render ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬.81 Verse

MT

LXX μέλαθρα (ceiling beams)

5a



‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬

5b



‫ְצ ָלעֹות‬

πλευράς (sides)

6



‫וע‬ ַ ‫ַהּיָ ִצ‬

ἡ πλευρά (the side)

8



‫ַה ֵּצ ָלע‬

τῆς πλευρᾶς (the side)

10



‫וע‬ ַ ‫ַהּיָ ִצ‬

τοὺς ἐνδέσμους (the bondings)

Other variants Manuscripts BNva2L omit 5b.

Manuscript e2 reads δεσμους.

The omission of v. 5b in some important manuscripts (cf. below) simplifies certain Greek renditions of the Solomonic yaṣiaʿ. In this way some Greek text-types avoid the syntactical and lexical problems of v. 5 posed by MT and A. Another important difference can be traced between the Hebrew and Greek versions of vv. 6 and 8. As noted above, according to MT, v. 6 describes a threefloor structure, but in v. 8 the lower floor is not mentioned. All the Greek manuscripts, however, mention all three floors in v. 8, whereas the Old Latin and Syriac manuscripts support the lectio difficilior of MT.82 According to the Greek manuscripts the structure was entered via the lower floor, not the middle floor as in MT. The middle floor could be reached by means of a ἑλικτός “winding staircase,” and from the middle floor one could ascend to the upper floor. As a result, the Greek versions create a coherent description of the Solomonic yaṣiaʿ, which has three floors and one point of access situated on the right. The last difference between LXX and MT appears in v. 10. None of the Greek manuscripts render the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהיָ ִצ‬here with μέλαθρα, as they did in v. 5a, or πλευρά, as in v. 6; instead, they use the term ἔνδεσμος, which occurs twice in this verse – once in the plural (corresponding to ‫וע‬ ַ ‫)היָ ִצ‬ ַ and once in the singular (corresponding to ‫)ה ָּביִת‬. ַ According to the Greek manuscripts, this verse no longer speaks about the yaṣiaʿ but about a system of architectural bonds. The next stage in the architectural development of the exterior of the temple is attested in Chronicles, Ezekiel, the Targumim, Josephus, and the Mishnah. In none of these sources is the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬or a consistent Aramaic or Greek equivalent used of the structure as a whole. Rather, most of these texts describe a set of rooms or chambers surrounding the temple, features unmentioned in 1 Kgs 6. Chronicles omits the description of the yaṣiaʿ and focuses on the decoration of the temple. The omission of the yaṣiaʿ in Chronicles has been variously explained.83 K. Möhlenbrink argued that its absence in Chronicles reflected the original shape of the temple, which had no surrounding structure. T. A. Busink Godding 1967, 159–165; Lust 2012. Barthélemy 1982, 341. 83 For a good review of scholarly opinions, see Busink 1970, 210–212. 81 82

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

129

argued, however, that 2 Chr 5:1’s statement that the utensils of the temple were stored in the treasuries of the temple presupposes the existence of chambers attached to the temple. Based on this verse, Busink dismissed Möhlenbrink’s argument that the absence of evidence for the structure in Chronicles is evidence of the structure’s absence from the temple. In contrast to Chronicles, Ezekiel’s version of the temple describes a sophisticated system of chambers, rooms, and structures surrounding the temple and its courts. These structures can be divided into the outer complex (Ezek 40:17; 46:19–24), the inner complex (Ezek 40:44–46; 41:9–10; 42:1–14), and structures surrounding the sanctuary itself (Ezek 41:5–9a).84 The outer court was, according to Ezekiel’s vision, surrounded by thirty ‫“ ְל ָׁשכֹות‬chambers” (Ezek 40:17). D. I. Block linked this verse with Ezek 42:6 and concluded that these chambers were some sort of pillared porticoes used by worshipers and priests.85 The inner court was also surrounded by a system of ‫“ ַה ְּצ ָלעֹות‬cells” and ‫“ ְל ָׁשכֹות‬chambers” (Ezek 41:9b–11). To this complex can be added the ‫“ ְל ָׁשכֹות‬rooms” for the priests (Ezek 42:1–14). In addition to this sophisticated system of chambers and rooms, the temple itself had a surrounding structure similar to what 1 Kgs 6:5–10 describes. Both Ezek 41:6 and 1 Kgs 6:6 share a similar idea about the supports forming a sort of ledge so that the outer wall of the temple would remain untouched. Another similarity between the MT version of 1 Kgs 6 and Ezek 42 is that the structure is accessed through the second floor, whereas the Greek text-types of Kings correct this, stating that access is via the first floor. On the other hand, there are several differences. If the generally accepted interpretation of Ezek 41:6 is correct,86 then the surrounding structure was composed of three floors containing thirty chambers each, for a total of ninety chambers. Nothing like this can be derived from 1 Kgs 6. Moreover, in Ezek 41:5–9a the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬, used three times in 1 Kgs 6, completely disappears; the only term used in the description of the surrounding structure is ‫ה ְּצ ָלעֹות‬/‫ע‬ ַ ‫צ ָל‬, ֵ which occurs twice in 1 Kgs 6:5–10. The final difference is that Ezekiel’s description unfolds without interruption, in contrast to 1 Kgs 6, which is interrupted twice (vv. 7, 9). The account of the temple preserved in the Temple Scroll from Qumran also describes various systems of rooms and chambers. The passage concerning the structure surrounding the temple in column 4, however, has been very poorly preserved.87 The authors introduced a new architectural term into the description, ‫“ רובד‬terrace” (11Q 19 IV, 5). Since this part of the scroll is heavily damaged, we cannot draw any conclusions. Similar to Ezekiel, in addition to the structure surrounding the temple itself, the Temple Scroll lists a sophisticated system of O’Hare 2010, 140–143. Perhaps they were used for eating and gathering as well as preparing guilt offerings (Block 1997, 524). 86 Zimmerli 1969, 1029–1031; Block 1997, 547–551. 87 Maier 1985, 66–67. 84 85

130

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

chambers incorporated into the walls of the courts and adds several buildings next to the temple.88 Targum Jonathan further expands on and interprets 1 Kgs 6:5–10, yielding a set of structures surrounding the temple.89 The following chart summarizes the changes. Verse

MT

Targum Jonathan

5a

‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬

‫( זיזא‬cornice/bracket)

5b

‫ְצ ָלעֹות‬

‫( מחציא‬extension)

6a

‫צּוע‬ ַ ָ‫ַהּי‬

‫( מחצתא‬extension)

6b

—

Targum adds: ‫לגיו ולברא מן מחציא למהוי ריׁשי ׁשריתא ניחין על זיזיא ולא יהוין ׁשריתא‬ ‫מעברן בכתלי ביתא‬ The inside and the outside from the extensions, to be the ends of the beams resting on the brackets, and the beams were not passing through the walls of the house.

8

‫ַה ֵּצ ָלע‬

‫( מחצתא‬extension)

10

‫צּוע‬ ַ ָ‫ַהּי‬

‫( תיקא‬gallery/parapet)

Targum Jonathan translates two different technical terms that appear in MT vv. 5b, 6, and 8 (‫ה ְּצ ָלעֹות‬/‫ע‬ ַ ‫ה ֵּצ ָל‬, ַ vv. 5b, 8; ‫צּוע‬ ַ ָ‫הּי‬, ַ v. 6) with one term (‫)מחציא‬. On the other hand, similar to LXX, the Targum translates the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬in vv. 5a and 10 with two different words (‫ זיזא‬and ‫)תיקא‬. The Targum thus eliminates the problems caused by the triple repetition of the difficult term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬in MT. However, the major change in the Targum is the addition to v. 6. This passage explains how the beams were connected to the extensions. There were projections on the inside and outside of the extensions, and because those projections supported the beams it was not necessary to insert them into the temple walls. Finally, the Targum interprets v. 10 as reporting the addition of a new architectural element (a gallery or parapet) that was built against the temple walls. By making these adjustments to MT, the Targum offers a more logical architectural system. First Solomon built 88 For discussions of the system of chambers, see Yadin 1977, 178–276; Maier 1985, 88– 115; and Shiffman 2011, 48–53. 89 Translation (Saldarini and Harrington 1987, 222): “5. And he built against the walls of the house the brackets round about; he circled the walls of the house all round, the nave and the house of atonements; and he made extensions all round. 6.The lowest extension was five cubits wide, and the middle was six cubits wide, and the third was seven cubits wide; for he made projections for the house all round the inside and the outside from the extensions, to be the ends of the beams resting on the brackets, and the beams were not passing through the walls of the house. […] 8. The entrance to the lowest extension opened to the right side of the house, and by a winding staircase they went up from the lowest to the highest by way of the middle one. […] 10. And he built the gallery against the whole house, its height five cubits; and covered the house with the cedar timbers.”

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

131

brackets/cornices around the temple. Then he added three structures called “extensions,” to be understood in this context as floors, that were accessible through a single ground-level entrance. The upper floor could have been reached by a winding staircase. On the exterior and interior sides of the extensions Solomon built projections on which rested the roof beams. Finally, he added a gallery/ parapet to the temple. In Josephus’s account (Ant. 8.65–68; War 5.220), the surrounding structure has not only a different name but also a different shape. It comprises thirty οἴκοι “houses,” which according to Josephus were built by Solomon. The number is most likely taken from Ezek 40:17,90 even though in Ezekiel the buildings are called παστοφόρια ‫“ ְל ָׁשכֹות‬chambers.” According to Josephus, each house measured 5 × 5 × 20 cubits. The houses had their own roofs and were connected by communicating doors. Josephus does not mention that the houses were arranged on three floors. Josephus’s description is simpler than that of MT. He understood the surrounding structure as consisting of small but very high chambers surrounding the temple. The final development of the temple tradition is found in the Mishnah (Middot 4:3–5).91 This presentation of the temple contains a sophisticated set of thirty-eight ‫“ תאין‬little chambers” surrounding the temple (4:3). The chambers were to be organized on three floors with three entrances. *** From the preceding survey of ancient attempts to make sense of the presentation of the yaṣiaʿ in 1 Kgs 6 we can draw some conclusions. The MT repeatedly used the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬to describe the structure, but its meaning is not consistent throughout vv. 5–10. The Greek witnesses to 1 Kgs 6 resolved this problem by translating it differently according to context, thereby creating a more coherent description of the surrounding structure while still avoiding the terms “chamber” or “room” or “house.” The Chronicler completely omitted the yaṣiaʿ from his account of Solomon’s temple. In the book of Ezekiel, the terms ‫ ֵצ ָלע‬and ‫צ ָלעֹות‬, ְ used also in 1 Kgs 6, became Ezekiel’s favorite terms for describing the surrounding structure and its components. Ezekiel, moreover, mentions another sophisticated system of rooms and chambers surrounding the inner and outer courts as well. Similarly, later traditions such as Targum Jonathan, Josephus, and the Mishnah developed a sophisticated system of chambers, probably inspired by Ezekiel, that were added to various parts of the temple complex. To sum up, ancient attempts to model the surrounding structure ranged from eliminating it entirely, as in Chronicles, to replacing it with a sophisticated system of chambers and rooms attached to different parts of the temple complex, as in Begg and Spilsbury 2005, 20. For the Hebrew text, see Kaufman 1991, 55; for an English translation (by A. Edersheim), see http://philologos.org/__eb-sjsl/append1.htm (accessed June 27, 2012). 90 91

132

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Ezekiel. The interpretation of the surrounding structure as a system of chambers developed only in later periods. On the contrary, all of the Hebrew manuscripts and Greek versions of 1 Kgs 6 employed the technical terminology ‫צ ָלעֹות‬/ ְ ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬, avoiding terms such as “chambers,” “rooms,” or “houses.” 4.3.3 Textual Strata Our review of ancient interpretations of 1 Kgs 6 has shown that it is impossible to reconstruct a single coherent system from the accounts of the surrounding structure(s) in the extant texts. There are several literary indicators of redactional interventions, and many contradictions that have resisted all the efforts of modern scholars to reconcile or harmonize them.92 Therefore it seems logical to conclude that the text has a complex redactional history. Indeed, to read 1 Kgs 6:5–10 as a text composed of various literary strata is not a new approach. Glosses in 1 Kgs 6:5 Several commentators have suggested that the description of the surrounding structure contains editorial additions, glosses, and materials coming from various sources. Thus already in 1911, P. N. Schlögl proposed that the phrases ‫ת־קירֹות‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב‬and ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ְצ ָלעֹות ָס ִביב‬in v. 5 were secondary glosses and even eliminated them from his translation.93 In 1911 A. Šanda came to a similar conclusion. Studying the syntax of v. 5a he pointed out a doublet: ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ָס ִביב ֶא‬and ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ס ִביב ַל ֵה‬. ָ He suggested that the former was the original text and the latter its later explanation.94 On the contrary, C. F. Burney concluded that ‫ָס ִביב‬ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬is a mere gloss on ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ס ִביב ַל ֵה‬. ָ 95 M. Noth suggested that the entire expression ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬is a later expansion that functions in apposition with ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬.96 Before deciding which parts are original and which are additions, it would be appropriate to examine the syntax of v. 5. The first possibility, as suggested by M. Noth, is to take ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬as an appositive explaining the direct object ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬. Accordingly the ‫ ֶאת־‬would mark a direct object (BDB 84–85) and the construct phrase (‫)קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ introduced by the marker ‫ ֶאת־‬would more closely define an undetermined object (DCH 443), in this case the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬: ‫ ס ִביב‬ ָ ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת יָ ִצ‬ ִ ‫ַע‬ ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ ס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ א‬ ֶ

Fichtner and Fricke 1964, 104–105; Gray 1976, 161. Schlögl 1911, 40. 94 Šanda 1911, 145. 95 Burney 1903, 64. 96 Noth 1968, 98. 92 93

‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

133

He built against/on the wall of the house a ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure all around, i.e., the walls of the house around the hekal and the debir.97

The verse has a parallel structure – two direct objects, each with a complement – and explains the problematic term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬as the walls of the house:

object I: ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬ object II: ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ א‬ ֶ

– complement I: ‫ָס ִביב‬ – complement II: ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬

In sum, according to this interpretation the phrase ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬is an appositive explicating the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬. This interpretation furthermore sheds light on the distinction between the singular “wall” and plural “walls.” The singular form refers to the wall of the temple, to which the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬was attached. The plural describes the walls of the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬. Another interpretation presupposes that the marker ‫ ֶאת־‬can resume a preposition (BDB 85). In this case, the marker would resume the preposition ‫על‬: ַ ‫ ס ִביב‬ ָ ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ע‬ ַ ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ ס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ א‬ ֶ

‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬

He built against/on the wall of the house a ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure all around, i.e., against/on the walls of the house all around the hekal and the debir.

As in the previous solution, so too in this case the explanatory part would be ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ִ ‫;א‬ ֶ however, here it would specify not the type of ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure but rather the place where the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬was built. This solution, however, runs into a problem: Why does the explication use the plural ‫ ִקירֹות‬whereas the base text uses the singular ‫?קיר‬ ִ Finally, the marker ‫ ֶאת־‬could be functioning in conjunction with ‫ס ִביב‬, ָ similar to the compound preposition plus ‫ס ִביב ל‬. ָ When ‫ ָס ִביב‬is used as a preposition, the following noun is often introduced by the preposition ‫ל‬. In one case, however, the combination ‫ ָס ִביב‬followed by ‫ ֶאת‬appears (‫ או֗ ָתה‬‭‫ָסִביב‬, Ezek 43:17; BDB 687). Whereas in the previous two interpretations the first‪‫ ָס ִביב‬was interpreted as an adverb and the second ‫ ָס ִביב‬as a preposition, according to this interpretation ‫ָס ִביב‬ is twice interpreted as part of a compound preposition, ‫ ָס ִביב ֶאת־‬and ‫ס ִביב ל‬. ָ Thus ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ָס ִביב ֶא‬is to be understood as a complete propositional phrase. ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫א‬‎ ֶ ‫ ס ִביב‬ ָ ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ַע‬ ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬

‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬

He built against/on the wall of the house a ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure around the walls of the house, i.e., around the hekal and the debir.

If this solution were to be followed, then only ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬would be regarded as an addition because it explains that the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure encompassed 97 Another variant of this translation would be “along with the walls of the house.” In this case ‫ ֶאת־‬would not mark the direct object but should be translated as “with, along with.”

134

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

both the debir and the hekal of the temple. This interpretation, preferred by some scholars and dictionaries (BDB 687), has, however, been contested. W. Zimmerli, followed by recent editions of dictionaries (e.g., HAHw 870), considered the only occurrence of ‫ ָס ִביב ֶאת־‬in Ezekiel problematic and preferred to read it as the plural form ‫ס ִביבו֗ ת‬. ְ 98 In sum, this interpretation is based on flimsy evidence and therefore it will not be taken into consideration in this study. Of all these solutions, the most feasible is the first one: the expression ‫ֶאת־‬ ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ ִקירֹות ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬explains what the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬means. At a certain point, the biblical editors needed to gloss the obscure word ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬. This conclusion converges with the results of the previous section, which demonstrated that the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬disappeared from later biblical descriptions of the structures surrounding the temple. A study of the Greek manuscripts adds new details in support of this conclusion. The extant manuscripts render the problematic verse 1 Kgs 6:5 in three different ways. Masoretic Text

Codex Vaticanus

Antiochian version

‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ַע‬ ‫וע ָס ִביב‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬

καὶ ἔδωκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τοῖχον τοῦ οἴκου μέλαθρα κυκλόθεν τῷ ναῷ καὶ τῷ δαβείρ

καὶ ἔδωκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τοῖχον τοῦ οἴκου μέλαθρα κυκλόθεν τῷ ναῷ καὶ τῷ δαβείρ

σὺν τοίχοις τοῦ οἴκου κυκλόθεν τῷ ναῷ καὶ τῷ δαβείρ

‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ָס ִביב‬ ‫יכל וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ָ ‫ַל ֵה‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ְצ ָלעֹות‬ ‫ָס ִביב‬

Codex Alexandrinus καὶ ἔδωκεν ἐπὶ τὸν τοῖχον τοῦ οἴκου μέλαθρα κυκλόθεν

καὶ ἐποίησεν πλευρὰς κυκλόθεν

καὶ ἐποίησε πλευρὰς κυκλόθεν

Codex Vaticanus has the shortest text. It mentions only one element (μέλαθρα “beams”) of the structure that surrounds the hekal and debir. The Antiochian version expands the text and describes two features of that structure: the μέλαθρα, as in B, and the πλευράς. Finally, Codex Alexandrinus and MT add ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ and ‫( ָס ִביב‬cf. below).99 However, all the Greek text-types witness “around the hekal and the debir,” and this fact leads us to conclude that only ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ and ‫ ָס ִביב‬are later glosses. Thus analysis of the syntax of MT 1 Kgs 6:5 combined with the evidence of the versions demonstrates that only ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬and ‫ ָס ִביב‬are later glosses; they explain the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬, which was already obscure to the editors of the book of Kings. They understood the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬as the walls built around the temple. This term is completely absent from Chronicles and Ezekiel. 98 99

Zimmerli 1983, 424. Codex Alexandrinus translates the object marker ‫ ֶאת־‬as the preposition σύν “with.”

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

135

1 Kgs 6:7, 9 Most scholars agree that 1 Kgs 6:7 and 9 are insertions interrupting the description of Solomon’s yaṣiaʿ.100 Despite the almost complete consensus regarding the additional nature of these two verses, some further observations can be made. Above all, v. 9a, ‫ת־ה ַּביִת וַ יְ ַכ ֵּלהּו‬ ַ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬, bears traces of the final redactor’s pen. The phrase occurs in vv. 9 and 14 (in the latter case Solomon’s name follows the verb), it has a structural function in the narrative, and together with 1 Kgs 6:1 it could be attributed to the final redactor.101 P. Zamora García suggests that vv. 9a and 14 form an inclusio within which the final redactor placed God’s speech (1 Kgs 6:11–13).102 In sum, the material in these interruptive verses can be divided into two groups: an addition belonging to the final redaction (v. 9a), and explanatory additions describing the material used for the construction of the temple (vv. 7 and 9b). The oldest strata in 1 Kgs 6:5–10 Verses 5b, 6, 8, and 10 constitute a real crux interpretum due to the alternation between ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬and ‫צ ָלעֹות‬/‫ע‬ ְ ‫ ֵצ ָל‬in these sentences (cf. §4.3.1). Most modern commentators, with various nuances, follow the more logical LXX reading and replace the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬in v. 6 with ‫ ַה ֵּצ ָלע‬and then interpret vv. 5b, 6, and 8 together.103 This interpretation thus presupposes that MT must be emended according to LXX. A few scholars, however, have defended MT’s ‫וע‬ ַ ‫הּיָ ִצ‬, ַ which is without any doubt the lectio difficilior, and tried to resolve the problems in these verses diachronically, although this sometimes leads them to revise MT in other ways. Let us present some of their interpretations. A. Šanda proposed a radical revision of 1 Kgs 6. Following what he believed to be the logical order of the construction of the temple, he moved vv. 5, 6, 8, and 10 to the end of the chapter, after the description of the temple ends in v. 38.104 K. Möhlenbrink considered vv. 5, 6, and 8 to be postexilic additions and eliminated them from his revised translation of 1 Kgs 6.105 M. Noth also concluded that vv. 5b, 6, and 8 must come from a later period, most likely after the exile.106 J. Ouellette asserted that the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ַהּיָ ִצ‬ was not identical with ‫ ַה ֵּצ ָלע‬and that these verses must therefore be studied sep100 Rupprecht 1972, 42; Würthwein 1977, 60; DeVries 2003, 93; Nobile 2010, 104. Contra: Sweeney 2007, 111–112. 101 It is omitted or added in various Greek manuscripts (Godding 1967, 145–152). 102 Zamora García 2011, 153. Cf. also Lust 2012. 103 Lumby 1909, 56–57; Šanda 1911, 146; Montgomery 1951, 144; Fichtner and Fricke 1964, 100; Gray 1976, 161; Hentschel 1984, 44; Cogan 2001, 234; DeVries 2003, 85–86; Sweeney 2007, 112; Nobile 2010, 82. 104 Šanda 1911, 117–119. 105 Möhlenbrink 1932, 16, 21. 106 Noth 1968, 115.

136

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

arately.107 K. Rupprecht approached the question from a different point of view. He showed that vv. 9a and 14 (‫ת־ה ַּביִת וַ יְ ַכ ֵּלהּו‬ ַ ‫ )וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬are an example of Wiederaufnahme and thus divided the text into two literary units, 1 Kgs 6:2–8 and 6:9a–14.108 Consequently vv. 9b and 10 are to be disconnected from vv. 5–8. Building on this observation, he further concluded that the first block (vv. 2–8) belongs to an earlier stage of the formation of the text and vv. 9b and 10 to a later stage. According to M. I. Mulder, v. 8 “creates the impression of being a torso and … the omission of the entire verse helps rather than hinders the flow of the report as far as its intelligibility is concerned.”109 Finally, G. Hentschel suggested that the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬was in later periods rendered as ‫ה ֵּצ ָלע‬. ַ 110 This short review of scholarly opinions indicates that several scholars were not satisfied with solutions that required emending MT. Their arguments can be supplemented with another observation. Scholarly discussion has overlooked the similarity between vv. 5a and 10:111

‫וע‬ ַ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת יָ ִצ‬ ִ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ַע‬‎ 5a … ‫ל־ה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּכ‬ ָ ‫וע ַע‬ ַ ‫ת־הּיָ ִצ‬ ַ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬‎ 10 ‫קֹומתֹו‬ ָ ‫ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות‬ ‫ת־ה ַּביִת ַּב ֲע ֵצי ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיֶ ֱאחֹז ֶא‬

Both verses use the verb ‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬, both verses include the technical term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬as the direct object of ‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬,112 and both verses have a locative complement introduced by the preposition ‫על‬. ַ As in vv. 9a and 14, we have here in vv. 5a and 10 another example of Wiederaufnahme,113 which is often used when an author wants to return to the main theme after a digression. Consequently, vv. 5a and 10 should be read together.114 After the resumption in v. 10a, the author added two new pieces of information: the height of Solomon’s yaṣiaʿ was five cubits, and the temple was reinforced or overlaid with cedar beams (cf. §4.6). The analysis of 1 Kgs 6:5 has shown that the later editors of the book of Kings needed to explain the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬by means of additions, namely ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬and ‫ס ִביב‬. ָ The now-obscure term completely disappeared from later descriptions of the temple (Ezekiel, Josephus, the Targumim, m. Middoth) and was replaced with other technical terms in the Greek translations as well. This is a clear indication of the antiquity of the term ‫יָ ִצוע‬. Finally, 1 Kgs 6:5a and 10a are linked together. Thus it stands to reason that vv. 5a and 10 form the oldest stratum of the descrip-

Ouellette 1972, 187, 189. Rupprecht 1972, 46–47. 109 Mulder 1998, 245. 110 Hentschel 1984, 44. 111 The importance of reading vv. 5a and 10 together was noted by L. Waterman (1943, 286). 112 Möhlenbrink (1932, 14–17) observed that the technical terminology in both verses is identical. 113 Kuhl 1952. 114 Contrary to Rupprecht 1972, 46. 107 108

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

137

tion of the structure surrounding the temple. This ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-stratum was later enlarged by additions (vv. 5b–9) inserted between the brackets of the Wiederaufnahme. 1 Kgs 6:5b–6 and 8 The main argument for linking 1 Kgs 6:5b–6 and 8 together is the repetition of the term ‫ ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬in both passages. Due to the gender disagreement between the masculine noun ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬and the feminine adjectives (‫ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬, ַ ‫ה ַּת ְחּתֹנָ ה‬, ַ and ‫יׁשית‬ ִ ‫)ה ְּׁש ִל‬ ַ that follow it in v. 6, most scholars have accepted LXX, replacing ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ַהּיָ ִצ‬ with the feminine noun ‫ ַה ֵּצ ָלע‬and reading vv. 5b–6 and 8 together. This argument, however, suffers from some shortcomings. Gender disagreement occurs not only in v. 6 but also in v. 8. In v. 8 the middle floor is described by a feminine singular form, ‫ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬, ַ but the third floor is referred to by the masculine plural form ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬instead of the feminine singular form found in v. 6 (‫יׁשית‬ ִ ‫)ה ְּׁש ִל‬. ַ 115 The Greek text-types translate ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬with the neuter plural form τά τριώροφα. The Syriac version and the Vulgate harmonize v. 8 with v. 6, and treat the masculine plural form ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬in v. 6 as if it were a feminine singular form, rendering it as “the third.” From a text-critical point of view, the masculine plural variant seems to be the most original reading.116 In order to explain these problems, most scholars have taken an essentially synchronic approach to the text and posited two scribal errors: first, ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬should be replaced with ‫ ַה ֵּצ ָלע‬in v. 6; second, the masculine plural ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬should be replaced with the feminine singular ‫יׁשית‬ ִ ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל‬in v. 8.117 In emending the passage thus, however, scholars discard the readings that from the text-critical point of view seems to be more original. Let us try to explain the lectio difficilior of MT. In the Hebrew Bible there are six occurrences of the plural of the ordinal numeral ‫( ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬Gen 6:16; Num 2:24; 1 Sam 19:21; 1 Kgs 6:8; 2 Kgs 1:13; Ezek 42:3). In each case, it refers to a third set of people or things, not simply to a third individual or unit. Following the traditional grammars, we may call this usage the plural of composition, i.e., a plural form indicating a group of units (JM §136b, BHS §7.4.1b). The MT’s ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬would thus indicate that the third story of the structure surrounding the temple contained a number of unspecified elements, in contrast to the middle story, for which the singular form ‫ ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬is used. The next question is why the adjective ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬modifying the feminine noun ‫ ֵּצ ָלע‬bears a masculine ending ‫ים‬- and not a feminine ending ‫ות‬-. According to Gesenius there are several feminine singular nouns that form plurals both with the masculine ‫ים‬- and the feminine ‫ות‬- (GKC §87m). D. Michel explored 115 Other proposed interpretations of ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬are “thirty” or “three times” (Busink 1970, 213–214). 116 I express my deep gratitude to A. Schenker and A. Gianto, who gave me valuable textual and grammatical observations on this verse. 117 Even if we eliminate the problem of number by adverting to 2 Kgs 1:13, where singular and plural forms appear to be interchangeable (‫‏שׁ ִל ִשׁים‬ ְ ‫ר־ח ִמ ִשּׁים‬ ֲ ‫ ַשׂ‬,‫ישׁי‬ ִ ‫ר־ה ֲח ִמ ִשּׁים ַה ְשּׁ ִל‬ ַ ‫)שׂ‬, ַ we still must explain why the scribes used a masculine instead of a feminine form.

138

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

this question further and concluded that when the masculine plural is used it emphasizes the collective aspect of the group, whereas the feminine plural places more emphasis on the individual members.118 Even though Michel was describing a somewhat different phenomenon limited to feminine nouns, his study can shed light on our problem. According to the logic he identified, the masculine plural adjective ‫ ַה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬emphasizes that the third ‫ ֵּצ ָלע‬comprises numerous individual elements in contrast to the middle ‫ּצ ָלע‬, ֵ with its grammatically singular adjective. The gender disagreements in vv. 6 and 8 are not the only problems in these passages. Verse 6 mentions three floors, whereas v. 8 mentions only the middle and third floors (the latter using a masculine plural adjective). This difference is further underlined by v. 8’s statement that access was directly to the middle floor, and as a result from the middle floor it was possible to climb to the third floor. Moreover, the structure of vv. 6a and 8 is very different. Whereas v. 8 has one nominal phrase followed by an independent verbal clause, the structure of v. 6a is very regular: it consists of three nominal phrases following the same pattern. Finally, in a study of the terms ‫ּב ַא ָּמה‬, ָ used three times in v. 6, and ‫אּמֹות‬, ַ used once in v. 10, J. S. DeVries found that the expression ‫ ָּב ַא ָּמה‬and the plural form ‫ ַאּמֹות‬point to verbatim citations from architectural records. On the other hand, the plural ‫ ַאּמֹות‬as well as the singular ‫ ָּב ַא ָּמה‬belong to the narrator.119 According to DeVries, v. 6a contains a direct quotation from a different source. All these elements lead toward the following conclusion. Above all, exegetes interpreting vv. 6 and 8 of MT must opt either to emend the text or to accept the lectio difficilior of the Hebrew version. If this lectio difficilior is taken as the starting point for the reconstruction of the text, then we have to explain the gender disagreements in vv. 6 and 8, the different technical terms ‫ה ֵּצ ָלע‬/ ַ ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ַהּיָ ִצ‬ and ‫אּמֹות‬/‫ה‬ ַ ‫ּב ַא ָּמ‬, ָ and the problem of the missing first floor in v. 8. I suggest that a suitable resolution of the textual and grammatical problems can be achieved by attributing verses to different periods. In this case, v. 8 would represent one compositional layer, and the three nominal phrases containing the ‫ּב ַא ָּמה‬-type ָ of measurements in v. 6 would belong to a different stratum – or, as DeVries suggested, they are a verbatim quotation from a different source. Finally, we have to explain the disagreement in gender between ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬and the adjectives and suffixes associated with it in v. 6. Building upon the previous arguments, v. 6 must be a later explanation of the surrounding structure. From the syntactical point of view ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬in v. 6 functions as a feminine noun, in contrast to v. 10 where it is masculine. There are several possible explanations. First, the noun could be a remnant of an older sentence that originally contained a masculine form. That sentence would have been connected with vv. 5a and 10, but it has not been preserved. This reconstruction, however, remains too hypothetical. 118 119

Michel 1977, 38–40. DeVries 2003, 90–93. This idea was contested by Zamora García (2011, 152).

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

139

Another possibility is to take ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬as a scribal error or a deliberate alteration and to emend it to ‫ה ֵּצ ָלע‬, ַ as the Greek text-types did and as most scholars have done. The last possibility would be to treat this word as masculine in vv. 5a and 10 and as feminine in v. 6. In this case the feminine ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ַהּיָ ִצ‬would describe the whole recessed system. Taking these options into consideration, the content of vv. 6 and 8 can be arranged according to its structure as follows:

‫וע‬ ַ ‫הּיָ ִצ‬‎ ַ 6 ‫ַה ַּת ְחּתֹנָ ה ָח ֵמׁש ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְח ָּבּה‬ ‫וְ ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה ֵׁשׁש ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְח ָּבּה‬ ‫יׁשית ֶׁש ַבע ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְח ָּבּה‬ ִ ‫וְ ַה ְּׁש ִל‬ … ‫יְמנִ ית‬ ָ ‫ל־ּכ ֶתף ַה ַּביִת ַה‬ ֶ ‫ ֶּפ ַתח ַה ֵּצ ָלע ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה ֶא‬‎ 8 ‫ל־ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬ ַ ‫לּוּלים יַ ֲעלּו ַע‬ ִ ‫ּוב‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה ֶא‬ ַ ‫ּומ‬ ִ

*** Let me summarize the signs pointing to different redactional strata in the text: 1. Most scholars note two interruptions of the text in vv. 7 and 9; the latter contains two insertions differing in nature (9a and 9b). These two interruptions bear all the signs of being later additions and consequently could collectively be considered a later stratum of the text. 2. The syntax of 1 Kgs 6:5a and its different readings in Greek and Hebrew show that ‫ה ַּביִת‬, ַ ‫ת־קירֹות‬ ִ ‫א‬, ֶ and ‫ ָס ִביב‬are later glosses. 3. The Wiederaufnahme in vv. 5a and 10 is a sign of redactional activity; here the editor resumed the main theme after a digression. Comparing the technical terminology in vv. 5–10 with the textual variants and versions, it can be concluded that vv. 5a and 10 represent the most ancient stratum of the text of 1 Kgs 6:5‒10. 4. Differences in technical terminology (‫צ ָלעֹות‬/ ְ ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬and ‫אּמֹות‬/‫ה‬ ַ ‫ ָּב ַא ָּמ‬in vv. 5b, 6, and 8), gender disagreements, and logical contradictions all point to MT as the lectio difficilior for vv. 5–10 as a whole. If we maintain the lectio difficilior, we must conclude either that the text contains several scribal errors to be emended according to other versions, or that the text was deliberately altered by redactors. The latter option is pursued here. Comparison of the syntax, vocabulary, and structure of vv. 6 and 8 suggests that the best candidates for later additions are three nominal phrases in v. 6a that display gender disagreement, the ‫ּב ַא ָּמה‬-type ָ of measurements in v. 6a, and the three-story structure described in v. 8. The indicators discussed in detail above are strong enough to warrant the conclusion that the final account of the yaṣiaʿ in MT is the result of a series of

140

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

redactional interventions.120 Summarizing previous analysis and inspired by G. Hentschel’s proposal,121 I posit three literary strata in 1 Kgs 6:5–10, the text describing the surrounding structure.122 The first stratum is defined by the use of the technical term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫( יָ ִצ‬in particular in vv. 5a and 10a), the second by the technical term ‫( ֵצ ָלע‬vv. 5b, 8), and the third by various notes and glosses added during different periods. Verse 5

Stratum 1: ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure

Stratum 2: ‫צ ָלע‬-structure ֵ

Stratum 3: Expansions

‫וע‬ ַ ‫ל־קיר ַה ַּביִת יָ ִצ‬ ִ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ַע‬‎ ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ָס ִביב ַל ֵה‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וְ ַל ְּד ִביר‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ְצ ָלעֹות ָס ִביב‬

6

[‫וע‬ ַ ‫?]יָ ִצ‬

‫ַה ַּת ְחּתֹנָ ה ָח ֵמׁש ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְח ָּבּה‬ ‫וְ ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה ֵׁשׁש ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְח ָּבּה‬ ‫יׁשית ֶׁש ַבע ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְח ָּבּה‬ ִ ‫וְ ַה ְּׁש ִל‬ ‫ִּכי ִמגְ ָרעֹות נָ ַתן ַל ַּביִת ָס ִביב‬ ‫ירֹות־ה ָּביִת‬ ַ ‫חּוצה ְל ִב ְל ִּתי ֲאחֹז ְּב ִק‬ ָ

7

‫ן־ׁש ֵל ָמה ַמ ָּסע‬ ְ ‫וְ ַה ַּביִת ְּב ִה ָּבנֹתֹו ֶא ֶב‬‎ ‫ל־ּכ ִלי‬ ְ ‫ּומ ָּקבֹות וְ ַהּגַ ְרזֶ ן ָּכ‬ ַ ‫נִ ְבנָ ה‬ ‫ַב ְרזֶ ל לֹא־נִ ְׁש ַמע ַּב ַּביִת ְּב ִה ָּבנֹתֹו‬

8

‫ֶּפ ַתח ַה ֵּצ ָלע ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה ֶאל־‬ ‫לּוּלים‬ ִ ‫ּוב‬ ְ ‫יְמנִ ית‬ ָ ‫ֶּכ ֶתף ַה ַּביִת ַה‬ ‫ּומן־‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ִּתיכֹנָ ה‬ ַ ‫יַ ֲעלּו ַע‬ ‫ל־ה ְּׁש ִל ִׁשים‬ ַ ‫ַה ִּתיכֹנָ ה ֶא‬

9 10

‫ת־ה ַּביִת וַ יְ ַכ ֵּלהּו וַ ּיִ ְסּפֹן ֶאת־‬ ַ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬ ‫ּוׂש ֵדר ֹת ָּב ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ְ ‫ַה ַּביִת ּגֵ ִבים‬ ‫ל־ה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּכ‬ ָ ‫וע ַע‬ ַ ‫ת־הּיָ ִצ‬ ַ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬ ‫קֹומתֹו‬ ָ ‫ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות‬

4.3.4 Synthesis H. Tadmor and M. Cogan concluded that it would have been necessary to enlarge the structure surrounding the temple when more cultic personnel were involved and more utensils were used,123 because more storage room would have been required. The analysis of 2 Kgs 12–24 presented in §3.5 showed that indeed, at the end of the First Temple period, more utensils were used in the temple service, more rooms and chambers were built or torn down during various religious Rupprecht 1972, 39. Hentschel 1981, 17–24. 122 1 Kgs 6:6b–7, 9a represents another addition, studied below in §4.5. 123 Cogan 2001, 239. 120 121

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

141

reforms, and more personnel were involved in the temple service. The biblical evidence indirectly corroborates Tadmor’s and Cogan’s suggestion that at a certain point, significant changes must have been made to the surrounding structure of the temple. K. Möhlenbrink was one of the first scholars who proposed to correlate the literary development of the description of the temple with actual changes in the architecture of the temple. He suggested that since Chronicles did not mention the surrounding structure, it was not part of the old temple but was added during the Second Temple period.124 Similarly E. Würthwein suggested that changes in the architecture of the surrounding structure would have been reflected in the text by means of various additions and glosses. However, he concluded that given the present form of the text it is impossible to distinguish between the historical reality of the temple and its literary representation in the Bible.125 Contrariwise V. Fritz suggested that v. 6, which mentions a three-story annex, contradicts vv. 5 and 10, which know of a gallery but are unaware of a three-story annex, and therefore v. 6 might refer to a later extension of the building. This annex, according to v. 6, then became an integral part of the temple.126 K. Rupprecht approached the problems of the temple, the surrounding structure included, from a historical point of view. Comparing 2 Sam 24 with 1 Kgs 5–8 he concluded that David took over an old Jebusite sanctuary and Solomon turned it into an Israelite temple. He interpreted the verb “to build” as referring not to a new construction, but to the reshaping of a preexisting building. Hence the surrounding structure described in vv. 5–8 reflects Solomon’s reconstruction of the ancient Jebusite sanctuary.127 My proposal is based on a historical-critical analysis of the text studied above. Taking a diachronic approach to the inconcinnities in MT and the different descriptions of the temple in the Greek manuscripts and later versions, I propose that the surrounding structure evolved in three stages: (1) a surrounding structure that provided architectural support for the temple itself; (2) a corridor-like surrounding structure; and (3) a sophisticated system of chambers around the temple. This model of the development of the surrounding structure has analogues in archaeological excavations elsewhere. Temples 319, 200, 300, and 131 in Tell Qasile are a good example of the development of structures around a shrine. The temple of Stratum XII (Temple 319) did not have any surrounding structures; in Stratum XI (Temple 200), however, an entrance hall was added, and in Stratum X (Temple 131) about ten rooms surrounded the temple.128

Möhlenbrink 1932, 16–17. Würthwein 1977, 57. 126 Fritz 2003, 70–71; cf. Vincent and Steve 1956, 398–400. 127 Rupprecht 1977, 101. 128 Elkowicz 2012, 51–62, Tf. 2–9. In Memphis too we can observe the development from a one-room shrine to the sophisticated architecture of a temple (Arnold 1992, 14–28). 124 125

142

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

The surrounding structure as a system of architectural supports: It makes sense to assume that the Chronicler’s omission of the surrounding structure from his description of Solomon’s temple was a negative or hostile reaction to a sophisticated system of chambers surrounding the second temple.129 In this case, the omission would have been a purely theological statement that had nothing to do with the actual first temple. On the other hand, the Chronicler’s omission of the surrounding structure could have been based on his consultation of archives no longer extant, leading to his own reconstruction of the original plan of the temple. If the latter is the case, then the original temple had no surrounding structure during its first stage of existence.130 However, it is impossible to decide this matter given the present stage of our knowledge. Temples without any kind of surrounding structure have been excavated in the Levant. The best examples are the temples of Tell Tainat (Building II and XVI). Both structures were simple long-room temples attached to the palace.131 More can be said about the surrounding structure’s origin as a simple system of reinforcements and its subsequent transformation. The description of the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure (vv. 5a and 10a) comprises the oldest stratum of the biblical accounts. Several proposals have been advanced regarding the nature of this ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure.132 From vv. 5a and 10 we cannot say more than that the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure was a horizontal supportive structure measuring five cubits in height. In the previous section I argued that in v. 5a only ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫ ֶא‬and ‫ ָס ִביב‬are later glosses. The glosses indicate that later editors interpreted the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure as a system of walls (plural) built around the wall (singular) of the temple.133 A corridor-like surrounding structure: At some point the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure was transformed into or replaced with a more complex ‫צ ָלע‬-structure ֵ (vv. 5b, 8).134 M. Noth See for example Patrich 2009, 55–60. It has been suggested that the surrounding structure did not exist or was not considered part of the temple (Waterman 1943, 286–287). 131 Harrison 2012a, 2012b. 132 For a good review of possible meanings of this term, see Rupprecht 1972, 41. Let me present a selection of interpretations. J. R. Lumby (1909, 56) approached the problem by considering the ketiv and qere readings. He pointed out that the two different readings of the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ יָ ִצ‬may refer to the same structure from two different points of view: the former would describe the structure as a whole, while the latter would describe a single row of the same structure. L. Waterman (1943, 286) and S. J. DeVries (2003, 85–86) suggested that the term ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬ means “platform.” M. Noth (1968, 98) derived the term from the verb ‫ יצע‬and explained it as an architectural term describing a horizontal structure. M. I. Mulder (1998, 238) thought that the term could have signified “a vertical layer of durable wood or some other material put around the temple, reinforced with beams as buttresses to give the temple both greater sturdiness and greater beauty.” J. Ouellette (1972, 188–189) interpreted this term as having its architectural counterpart in the Akkadian bīt erši “bedroom.” 133 For a possible reconstruction of such a supportive structure, see Mulder 1998, 230. 134 K. Galling’s proposal that the structure existed for some time before it was put to practical use was contested by E. Würthwein (1977, 63–64). 129 130

4.3 The yaṣiaʿ or Surrounding Structure

143

observed that the term ‫ ְצ ָלעֹות‬has two different meanings in vv. 15 and 16 and in vv. 5b–8. From his analysis of the term in vv. 5b–8, Noth concluded that it referred to a structure built around the temple from the outside (Aussenanlage). Comparing the term ‫ ְצ ָלעֹות‬with its cognates in other languages, Noth proposed that the ‫ ְצ ָלעֹות‬were made of wood. These wooden structures, which could have been added later, may have been a type of balcony, possibly with a ribbed form.135 J. Ouellette suggested that the ‫צ ָלע‬-structure’s ֵ architectural counterpart was a side-wing (bīt qātê, lit. “hand-house”) and that this structure would have been a later addition to the temple.136 According to M. I. Mulder, the ‫ ְצ ָלעֹות‬were buttresses that contained a system of galleries open to the outside. Finally, V. Hurowitz suggested that they were a series of wooden crates that enveloped the building from without.137 Following the outline of textual strata in MT proposed above, I suggest that at the first stage the ‫צ ָלע‬-structure ֵ was divided into two horizontal levels – what the text calls the “middle” level and the “third” level. Either there was no first floor or it was completely filled in. The middle level of the ‫צ ָלע‬-structure, ֵ described by a feminine singular adjective, was without compartments,138 whereas the third level, described by a masculine plural adjective, consisted of several compartments. The opening on the right, i.e., the southern side of the building had a winding staircase139 that led directly to the middle floor. From the middle floor, it was possible to reach the compartments on the third floor. Finally, since v. 6a is a later addition to vv. 5b and 8, I suggest that this addition reflects a later transformation of the previous structure into a recessed construction that had three floors and also served to support the roof beams. This type of surrounding structure is also known in the Levant. Such temples had corridor-like halls or chambers around all parts of the temple except the entrance. The best examples are the temples of Ain Dara and Tell Afis. According to the excavators, the Ain Dara temple originally did not have any structures attached. They were added only in Phase III (about 900‒740 BCE).140 The excavation of the Tell Afis temple unearthed the solid foundation of a long-room temple with surrounding chambers. Judging from the thickness of the walls it can be concluded that the temple was quite tall.141 The corridor-like surrounding

Noth 1968, 113–115. Ouellette 1972, 190. 137 Hurowitz 2005, 71. 138 Waterman 1943, 287. 139 For other possible interpretations of ‫לּוּלים יַ ֲעלּו‬ ִ ‫ּוב‬, ְ see Gray 1976, 162, 166, and Mulder 1998, 247. 140 Abou-Assaf 1990, 39–41; Monson 2000, 23–24. 141 Mazzoni 2012, 30–32. 135 136

144

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

structure sometimes encompassed not only the temple itself but also adjacent rooms, as at Tell Halaf and Ekron.142 A sophisticated system of chambers around the temple: In its final phase the surrounding structure was transformed into a sophisticated system of chambers and rooms attached to the temple. This transformation started in the late preexilic period, as reflected in the books of Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Kings. This system continued and was further developed in the postexilic period, as demonstrated by the later versions of the description of the temple. These chambers were utilized by the temple personnel and provided storage for utensils. A good example of a temple completely surrounded by another building is found at Beth-Shean (Levels VII–V).143 The incorporation of temples into urban architecture is a common feature in the Levant; a temple is one among many buildings within a palace-temple complex. According to M. Ottosson, long-room temples like those in Jerusalem and Tell Tainat were never isolated structures, as wide-room temples were. Indeed, in some cases the temple court was enclosed by fairly imposing buildings.144

4.4 The ulam To enter the temple, a visitor had to pass through the ulam.145 The ulam of the temple appears for the first time in 1 Kgs 6:3; it is translated as “porch” (KJV, NAB), “portico” (NIV), or “vestibule” (NRSV). While the proposal that the term was a loan word from Akkadian ellamu “front”146 has been challenged, the noun can be derived from a root ‫“ אול‬to be in front,” expressed in Arabic as ʾaw­wal “first, foremost.” Accordingly the term ulam would name a structure standing in front of another structure.147 Another option is to derive the term from the Egyptian word wrm.t “roof,” which would imply that the ulam was a roofed structure.148 Beside the technical term ulam, 1 Kgs 6:3 repeats three times the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ע‬. ַ Before addressing this syntactically difficult verse, including the nuances of the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ we must discuss in detail the meaning of the technical term ulam in its other contexts. Ultimately I will argue that the biblical writers telescoped into the building account in 1 Kgs 6‒7 different 142 Elkowicz 2012, Tf. 14. Comparing the Tell Afis temple with similar buildings, D. Jericke (2010, 44–45) concluded that the temple with its surrounding structure resembled those at Ain Dara and Ekron and thus represented an architectural style of the ninth or eighth century BCE. Hence these passages in 1 Kgs 6 must describe a later development of the temple in Jerusalem. 143 James 1966, figs. 75–77; Mierse 2012, 390–392. 144 Ottosson 1980, 113. 145 For the different spellings of the term, see Stade and Schwally 1904, 85. 146 CAD E, 101. 147 Kittel and Nowack 1900, 47; Noth 1968, 97; Ouellette 1969, 366; Gray 1976, 163. 148 Görg 1980, 22–24.

4.4 The ulam

145

traditions about the ulam. This will require comparing not only extant manuscripts but also Chronicles and other biblical texts. Outside of 1 Kgs 6‒7, where the term ulam occurs ten times in connection with the palace or the temple, it is found only in Ezekiel, Chronicles, and Joel 2:17, where it refers exclusively to the temple. 4.4.1 The ulam and the Temple in Ezekiel The term ulam occurs most often in the book of Ezekiel: once in the Temple Vision (Ezek 8:16; cf. §3.6.3) and forty-seven times in Ezekiel’s vision of the New Temple (Ezek 40‒48). The differences between the temple as portrayed in Ezekiel, Kings, and Chronicles require that we study each book on its own.149 In the book of Ezekiel the term ulam is used exclusively of the temple architecture. In addition to the ulam of the temple building, the term also describes a hall attached to an outer or inner gate.150 The ulam as a hall of the temple gates This is the most frequent sense of the term ulam in Ezek 40‒46.151 The narrative treats the eastern gate as representative of the rest of the outer and inner gates. The eastern gate was singled out in anticipation of its future role, since through this gate the glory of the Lord would return to the temple (Ezek 41:1–4).152 The term describes the rear part of the gate, situated behind three pairs of recesses. In front of the ulam-hall was a large threshold similar to that at the entrance to the gate. At the back of the ulam-hall were two jambs forming the rear wall of the gate. The ulam-hall was a rectangular room. Its interior was eight cubits deep and ran the entire width of the gate.153 The temple complex had six ulam-halls, one at each of the four outer and two inner gates. After a detailed description of the eastern gate (Ezek 40:6–16), the other gates are similarly described in abbreviated form. Even though many details are omitted (Ezek 40:20–43), the ulam-hall of each of the other gates is always mentioned, which points to its importance in Ezekiel’s vision of the New Temple. W. Zimmerli argued that the ulam-halls of the temple gates had no defensive utility, unlike the equivalent six-chamber gates of the Iron Age II period, which Joyce 2005, 150–151. Ezekiel’s vision of the New Temple was inspired by Neo-Babylonian models (Leeven 2012, 388–394; Ganzel and Shalom 2014, 224–226). 151 There are numerous textual problems in these chapters. For our purposes the most important is the plural form of ulam in Ezek 40:16, which is generally considered a scribal mistake (Cooke 1936, 442; Zimmerli 1983, 335). 152 Allen 1990, 229. 153 For the design and description of the northern gate, see Block 1998, 520–521. The problem of the width of the ulam led C. G. Howie (1950b, 17) to suggest that the gate had two ulams. 149 150

146

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

did not have an ulam.154 So, the addition of the ulam points to “a specific transformation of the military defense gate to the cultically significant sanctuary gate.”155 The cultic importance of the ulam-hall of the gates is likewise underlined by the expression “the way of the ulam of the gate” (Ezek 44:3; 46:2, 8). The gates of Ezekiel’s vision played a special role in the solemn entrance of the prince156 to the temple (Ezek 44:3; 46:2). A similar emphasis on the cultic role of the gates can be seen in the digression on the ulam-hall of the inner northern gate (Ezek 40:38–43).157 This ulam-hall had an attached chamber in which sacrificial animals were washed before being offered. Inside of the ulam-hall there were two tables on either side and ‫ַה ְׁש ַפ ַּתיִם‬ “shelves” or “hooks,” probably used to hold sacrificial animals and utensils. Outside the ulam-hall were other tables.158 Despite several unresolved questions, vv. 38–43 show that in Ezekiel’s vision, the ulam-hall of the northern gate was transformed into a place in which animals were prepared for sacrifice.159 The ulam as a vestibule of the temple building The tour of the new temple starts with the ulam (Ezek 40:48–49). In comparison with 1 Kgs 6:3 and 2 Chr 3:4, the book of Ezekiel gives a more detailed description of the ulam. All extant manuscripts of Ezekiel agree that the interior of the ulam was twenty cubits wide. Its length was eleven cubits according to MT and twelve cubits according to LXX.160 The entrance of the ulam had two jambs, each three cubits long and five cubits thick, in contrast to side walls that were six cubits thick. A large gate, fourteen cubits large according to LXX, occupied the remaining space of the front of the ulam. The gate of the ulam was larger than the entry to the hekal and the debir. The people entered the ulam via a staircase that had ten steps, according to LXX. The ulam had two columns. Their position is specified by a preposition ‫אל‬/ἐπί, ֶ which allows one to conclude that the columns were not freestanding pillars in Ezekiel’s temple.161 Ezekiel 41:25b–26 completes the tour through the temple and supplies further information on the ulam. There was a wooden structure in front of the ulam called the ‫עב ֵעץ‬. ָ 162 The ulam was decorated with windows similar to those mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:4, and also with 154 Since the six-chamber gates were not rebuilt after the fall of Jerusalem, C. G. Howie (1950b, 19) suggested that Ezekiel’s vision was inspired by the preexilic temple. 155 Zimmerli 1983, 360. 156 Tuell 1992, 103–120. 157 Probably a later insertion (Zimmerli 1983, 366). 158 Eichrodt 1970, 545. 159 Block 1998, 531. 160 The latter is preferred since it corresponds to the length of the temple building, one hundred cubits (Ezek 41:13). However, the dimensions of not only the ulam but also the whole temple are increased in Ezek 40:48‒41:4 (Zimmerli 1983, 358–359). 161 Block 1998, 540–543. 162 For a different interpretation of this term, see Zimmerli 1983, 390.

4.4 The ulam

147

palmettes. Ezekiel 41:26 mentions that the ulam had storerooms attached to it.163 In contrast to the ulam that is described in 1 Kgs 6, the ulam of Ezekiel was two cubits longer, it had a large door, and it was decorated. A special feature of this ulam was that it had additional structures attached to it from the outside. Finally it was on a platform, as was the whole temple, with ten steps leading up to it. In short, the term ulam in the book of Ezekiel describes two different features. The first was a large hall at the inner end of each temple gate. W. Zimmerli’s study showed that in Ezekiel the ulams of the gates played an important role in worship at the temple. Among the six ulams of the gates, the ulam of the northern gate had a specific role. It had tables and served as a place for slaughtering sacrificial animals and storing sacrificial instruments. Second, the term ulam described an entrance hall to the temple building. This hall was bigger than that of 1 Kgs 6:3, it had a large door with jambs, it was decorated, and it had other structures attached to it. In both cases the ulam was a rectangular hall that formed the front or the rear part of another larger structure, and in both cases it had jambs. 4.4.2 The ulam and the Temple in Chronicles The term ulam appears in Chronicles six times (1 Chr 28:11; 2 Chr 3:4; 8:12; 15:8; 29:7, 17). Even a quick look at these occurrences reveals that the term ulam is used in a different way here than it is in Kings.164 First, the Chronicler reserved the term ulam exclusively for the temple; no other building had an ulam. Second, the term appears in passages whose counterparts in Kings do not mention an ulam. Third, the term appears in a syntagm, ‫אּולם יְ הוָ ה‬, ָ not used in Kings. In 2 Chr 29:3, 7 the Chronicler evidently considered ulam a synonym of “the house of the Lord.” Finally, the description of the ulam of the temple in 2 Chr 3:4 is unmistakably different from 1 Kgs 6:3. These differences between Kings and Chronicles urge us not to harmonize the ulams of both accounts too speedily, but to respect the Chronicler’s vision of the temple, the ulam included.165 First Chronicles 28:11 informs us that David gave to Solomon the pattern or plan of the ulam.166 The verse reads ‫ת־ּב ָּתיו וְ גַ נְ זַ ָּכיו וַ ֲע ִלּי ָֹתיו וַ ֲח ָד ָריו‬ ָ ‫אּולם וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־ּת ְבנִ ית ָה‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ּובית ַה ַּכּפ ֶֹרת‬ ֵ ‫ימים‬ ִ ִ‫ה ְּפנ‬, ַ lit. “(David gave to his son Solomon) the plan of the ulam, and of its houses, its treasuries, its upper rooms, and its inner chambers, and of the room for the mercy seat.” The third-person masculine singular suffixes in this verse cause several problems. Syntactically they should refer to the closest masculine noun, i.e., to the ulam. Hence the ulam would have houses, treasuries, different types of chambers, and even a house for the mercy seat. Clearly this raises a question since according to the traditional view the ulam did not have adBlock 1998, 560. For an excellent summary of the relationship between Kings and Chronicles with respect to the temple, see Tiňo 2010, 22–29. 165 Williamson 1991, 25–31; Schweitzer 2011, 135. 166 Braun 1976, 586–588. 163 164

148

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

ditional rooms or houses.167 Some Greek manuscripts read παράδειγμα τοῦ ναοῦ “the pattern of the temple.” This addition allows one to interpret the third-person masculine singular suffixes as referring to τοῦ ναοῦ, i.e., the temple itself and not just the ulam. Most interpreters likewise take the personal pronouns as referring to the house (temple) and not to the ulam.168 Thus scholars accepting this line of interpretation have either followed the Greek manuscripts or proposed other emendations to the Hebrew text.169 However, some scholars rightly prefer to treat MT as the lectio difficilior and consider it the original version. R. W. Klein challenged those who would emend the text by inserting a reference to the temple after the mention of the ulam: “But why would the Chronicler mention a portion of the house (vestibule) and the whole house in that order?”170 S. Japhet proposed an original solution to this problem. Noting the similarity between the usage of the term ulam and the term ‫“ ַּביִת‬house” in 2 Chr 8:12; 15:8; 29:7, 17, she concluded that in 1 Chr 28:11 ulam simply means “house.”171 Klein elaborated on Japhet’s proposal, suggesting that the term ulam in 1 Chr 28:11 is a synecdoche, “letting a part of the temple stand for its entirety.”172 The next occurrence of ulam is in 2 Chr 3:4. This verse corresponds to 1 Kgs 6:3, with some important changes. Since the prepositional phrases in these verses are studied below, this section discusses only the shape of the ulam. The syntax of MT permits the following translation: “And the ulam, which corresponded to the length, corresponded to the width of the house, (was) twenty cubits and its height (was) one hundred twenty cubits.”173 ‫ַאּמֹות ֶע ְׂש ִרים‬ ‫וְ ַהּג ַֹבּה ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶע ְׂש ִרים‬

‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָהא ֶֹרְך‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ַ ‫ א ֶׁשר‬ ֲ ‫ב־ה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹח‬ ְ ‫ַע‬

‫ם‬ ‎ ‫אּול‬ ָ ‫וְ ָה‬

This sentence interrupted by a short subordinate nominal phrase (“which corresponded to the length, corresponded to the width of the house”) contains some problems. First, it is not clear whether “twenty cubits” refers to the length or the width of the ulam. There are a few reasons to conclude that the Chronicler intended to portray the ulam with a square layout. Second Chronicles 3:4 does not mention the width of the ulam as in 1 Kgs 6:3, but the width of the temple was twenty cubits. Therefore, the two occurrences of the compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬with reference to length and width suggest that both the length and the width of the Chronicler’s ulam were twenty cubits. Klein 2006, 525. For example, Curtis and Madsen 1910, 298, and Dirksen 1996, 429, 433. 169 For a list of proposed emendations, see Knoppers 2004, 921. 170 Klein 2006, 515. 171 Japhet 2002, 448–449. 172 Klein 2006, 525. 173 For the translation of the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬as “corresponding to,” see below. 167 168

4.4 The ulam

149

The second peculiarity of the Chronicler’s version is that the height of the ulam was one hundred and twenty cubits. If this statement is taken at face value, the ulam would have been over fifty meters high, about as tall as a ten-story building. Walls of such a height would have had serious stability problems, which Roman architects only overcame a few centuries later by introducing arches. Such a high building, built without any special techniques such as ashlar pillars or a ziggurat plan, would quickly collapse. For this reasons most scholars think that the height of the building is exaggerated or a scribal error.174 However, the figure of one hundred and twenty cubits is supported by all the ancient versions, with the exception of a single unreliable manuscript (Bâle B VI 22). Josephus gives the same figure, but applies it to the height of the whole temple (Ant. 8.65); similarly also in the Mishnah (Middot 4:6). Whatever problems the figure causes for the interpretation of the passage, it should be taken as the lectio difficilior. The next four occurrences of ulam in Chronicles introduce the term in stories where the book of Kings does not mention it. We learn that the ulam had doors (2 Chr 29:7), which are not mentioned in 1 Kgs 6‒7. Moreover, the altar on which the burnt sacrifices were offered was in front of the ulam (2 Chr 8:12; 15:8; cf. Ezek 8:16; Joel 2:17), and in the days of Hezekiah a large number of priests entered the ulam to purify it (2 Chr 29:16–17). If we read all these citations together, we can conclude that the ulam, according to the Chronicler, was not a petite porch attached to the temple, but rather a monumental piece of architecture. Contrary to Kings, where the ulam is mentioned only in the building account (1 Kgs 6‒8) as part of both the temple and the palace architecture, in Chronicles ulam is exclusively a religious term. Even though the ulam of the Chronicler was far from being a realistic presentation of that part of the temple, it is important to notice that the Chronicler’s vision of the ulam as a monumental piece of architecture is internally coherent. The ulam of the Chronicler was a dominant structure in the temple complex, similar to a tenstory-high tower. It had doors and its interior was inlaid with gold. As the ulam was much higher than the rest of the temple, or any other building in Jerusalem, it reached toward heaven and so conceptualized a space for divine-human encounters.175 According to the Chronicler, Solomon did not build this monumental ulam on his own initiative, but according to the plan given him by his father David. This plan envisioned the ulam as a colossal structure containing various compartments, chambers, treasuries, and even the room where the mercy seat stood.176 David’s instructions to Solomon, read in the broader context of 1 Chr 28, suggest that ultimately it was God who was the author of the plan of the temple. Calling the temple “the ulam of the Lord” is a feature exclusive to Chronicles. The ulam of the Lord was situated at the highest point of Jerusalem, on the sacred mount, Myers 1965, 16; Japhet 2003, 50–51; Klein 2012, 47. Jarick 2005, 368–369. 176 Hurvitz 1995, 172–173. 174 175

150

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

and like a tower it reached to the heavens.177 Dominating the temple precincts, the Chronicler’s ulam was a point of reference for describing various activities in the temple area, such as the burnt offerings on the main altar.178 In sum, the ulam of the Chronicler was impressive enough to be used as a synecdoche for the entire temple.179 Such an ulam fits the ancient Near Eastern concept of the temple on the sacred mountain as a high place that “formed a link between the sky and the land, the realm of the gods and the dwelling-place of men.”180 Is the Chronicler’s account of the ulam reliable? Setting aside the problem of structural stability mentioned above, most scholars consider the Chronicler’s presentation of the cult and the temple to be a reflection of the postexilic restoration of Israel, in particular during the Persian period.181 Accordingly, the ulam of the Chronicler would have reflected the postexilic temple.182 The second possibility is to interpret the temple of the Chronicler as a reflection of the late preexilic temple, in contrast to the early preexilic temple described in Kings.183 In this case the ulam would reflect, albeit in an exaggerated manner, the shape of the temple before its destruction.184 Since these two interpretations are not contradictory, the possibility that the late postexilic temple and the temple of the restoration period shared some similarities should not be excluded too hastily. Hence the ulam of the Chronicler could reflect both late preexilic as well as postexilic architecture, when the ulam was a dominant feature of the temple complex, unlike in the early preexilic temple. 4.4.3 The ulam and the Palace in Kings In the Hebrew building account in 1 Kgs 6‒8 the term ulam appears ten times; six times it refers to the palace complex (1 Kgs 7:6–8) and four times to the temple Jarick 2005, 379–380. The bronze columns in 2 Chr 3:15 are also much higher than the columns in 1 Kgs 7:15–16. 179 Several ancient descriptions and modern reconstructions of the temple partially reflect this version of the ulam, adding an upper chamber that forms the second floor of the ulam. As a result, the ulam becomes significantly higher than the rest of the temple (Thompson 1954, 16–17; Vincent and Steve 1956, 397–398). 180 Clements 1965, 10. For an important study on the idea of the sacred mountain, see Clifford 1972. 181 For the temple in the restoration period, see Japhet 2006, 183–232. 182 The terminology and phraseology used in Chronicles is typical of the linguistic milieu during the Second Temple period (Hurvitz 1995, 181). 183 Yeivin 1964, 331–334. 184 A third option is to consider the account of the temple and its cult in Chronicles as a description of a utopia, or an alternative vision to be achieved only in the future. If this is the case, then the ulam of the Chronicler never existed outside of a utopian fantasy of the temple and its cult (Schweitzer 2007, 132–175). It is necessary, however, to distinguish between utopian fantasy and the exaggeration of certain aspects of the temple for theological reasons; see, for example, Ben Zvi 1997; Vaughan 1999; Kalimi 2005; and Beentjes 2008. 177 178

4.4 The ulam

151

(1 Kgs 6:3; 7:12, 19, 21). Within the occurrences of ulam in the texts relating to the royal palace it is possible to distinguish three different meanings of the term and three different functions of the structure.186 185

The ulam as a building: First Kings 7:6a describes the “ulam of columns.” From this biblical note we cannot clearly deduce any relation between the ulam of columns and the previous building – the House of the Forest – and therefore the ulam of columns could have been an independent structure in the vicinity of the House of the Forest.187 Conversely, it can be argued that the length of the ulam of columns corresponded to the width of the House of the Forest, and therefore some scholars have concluded that the ulam of columns was in fact a large entrance in front of the House of the Forest. From the biblical text we can only deduce that the ulam of columns was a large structure (50 × 30 cubits = 1,500 square cubits). In other words, this ulam was less than one-third the size of the House of the Forest188 (100 × 50 cubits = 5,000 square cubits), but one-fourth larger than the temple (60 × 20 cubits = 1,200 square cubits).189 Another important note regarding the meaning of the term ulam is found in 1 Kgs 7:8. This verse states that the palace of the Egyptian princess was similar to the ulam.190 The importance of the palace of the Egyptian princess can be fully understood when compared with structures belonging to royal wives in the ancient Near East.191 The ulam of the Egyptian princess was not a one-room building, but rather a palace with courts and rooms for the princess’s court. In sum, according to 1 Kgs 7:6a the ulam was the second-largest structure mentioned in 1 Kgs 6‒8, and according to 1 Kgs 7:8 it was a structure similar to the palace of the Egyptian princess.192 This large palace-like structure could have been attached to another complex or it may have stood on its own.193 Due to its See the discussion below. Major dictionaries such as BDB, HALOT, HAHw, and DCH do not distinguish these nuances of the term ulam. 187 Mulder 1998, 291. 188 Codex Vaticanus reads 50 × 50 = 2,500 square cubits, in which case the ulam of columns would have had a footprint half the size of that of the House of the Forest. 189 The number of columns supporting the ulam is not given. A rough estimate can be made by comparing the ulam with the House of the Forest: the latter structure covered an area of 5,000 square cubits and had 45 columns (1 Kgs 7:3); assuming that the number of columns is directly proportional to the area of the structure, then an ulam covering 1,500 square cubits would require 14 columns. 190 If the phrase “as the ulam” in 1 Kgs 7:8 refers to the ulam of columns, then the palace of the Egyptian princes was of a similar size (Jones 1984, 177). 191 For the households of princesses see SAA I 31:r.26–29 and van Keulen 2005, 62–81. 192 To this list we can also add 1 Kgs 7:8, which reads ‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫“ ִמ ֵּבית ָל‬within the ulam.” A literal interpretation of the expression would suggest that there was a court within the ulam (Gray 1976, 180). However, the prepositional phrase can also be translated “[in] back of the ulam” (Mulder 1998, 294). 193 Görg 1980, 23–24. 185 186

152

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

size, it must have had a dedicated purpose, as, for example, to accommodate a princess and her household. The ulam as a hall: This meaning of the term ulam can be derived from 1 Kgs 7:7, where it occurs twice: “the ulam of the throne” and “the ulam of judgment.” The MT notes that lawsuits were conducted in the ulam of the throne, which suggests that “the ulam of the throne” and “the ulam of judgment” are two names for the same structure.194 All preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts support this interpretation. This ulam was part of the royal palace, similar to the throne halls of ancient Near Eastern palaces.195 This hall-like structure was inlaid and roofed with cedar wood. It should be distinguished from the ulam of the columns. The ulam as a porch: Whereas scholars mainly agree on the interpretation of the previous verses, 1 Kgs 7:6b has generated numerous and often contradictory theories. It reads ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל־ּפנ‬ ְ ‫יהם וְ ַע ֻּמ ִדים וְ ָעב ַע‬ ֶ ֵ‫ל־ּפנ‬ ְ ‫אּולם ַע‬ ָ ְ‫ ;ו‬lit. “and an ulam in front of them and columns and a canopy in front of them.” The MT and most Greek manuscripts preserve the ulam in 7:6b (3 Kgdms 7:43) and consequently interpret this difficult text in the sense that there was another ulam “in front of them.”196 Codex Vaticanus reads, “and columns and thickness (of the beams) were in front of it (the building) and belonging to the ulams.” The manuscripts suggest that the term ulam in 7:6b refers to a structure in front of another structure, i.e., a porchlike structure.197 This brief investigation has shown that despite all the unresolved textual and linguistic problems, the term ulam in the biblical texts referring to the palace describes a structure, or a series of structures, that had three different functions: ulam-palace, ulam-hall, and ulam-porch. 4.4.4 The ulam and the Temple in 1 Kgs 7 The occurrences of the term ulam in 1 Kgs 7:6–21 also display a variety of functions that an ulam might perform. In an aside contained in the account of the royal palace, 1 Kgs 7:12 describes the construction of the walls of the large court and the inner court of the temple. The verse states that the walls had three rows of stone and one row of wood, probably to make the structure more elastic 194 Scholars have suggested reading “the ulam of judgment” as an explanatory phrase or a later gloss (Busink 1970, 140; Mulder 1998, 284; Cogan 2001, 255). 195 Mulder 1998, 293. 196 “Them” probably refers to the columns of the ulam of the columns, since ‫ ַע ֻּמ ִדים‬is the only plural noun in this verse. It is also possible, however, that “them” refers to the two buildings mentioned above, the ulam of columns and the House of the Forest. 197 Some scholars would revocalize ulam in 7:6b as a participle, i.e., “those waiting,” and take it as a reference to a sort of a waiting room in the form of a portico (Vincent and Steve 1956, 424; Gray 1976, 179; Jones 1984, 176). However, no such reading is witnessed in the versions and this theory is too speculative.

153

4.4 The ulam

and consequently more resistant to earthquakes. The last part of the verse adds ‫ּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬. ְ The awkwardness of this expression led some scholars to connect it with the royal palace or another building in the palace complex.199 Since the previous occurrence of ‫ ָּביִת‬in the verse refers to the temple (‫)ּבית־יְ הוָ ה‬, ֵ syntactically ‫ּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ should be interpreted as the ulam of the temple. This reading of MT represents the lectio difficilior. Several important Greek manuscripts omit the entire section of the verse mentioning the temple (“and to the inner court of the house of the Lord and to the ulam of the house”); MT is reflected only in AxAS. As a result, we can distinguish two different textual traditions and conclude that at a certain point the text was enlarged by the addition of ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַל ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ַה ְּפנ‬ ‫ּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬. ְ Thus one version of the description stated that only the walls of the large court incorporated a course of wood after every three rows of stone, while the other version added that this mixed masonry was also used in the ulam and the walls of the inner court of the temple. Dating this addition to the text is more problematic. Let us list a few points that can help us to determine the age of the variant containing the addition on the temple and the ulam (1 Kgs 7:12b). First, since B/Ant. does not contain this addition, it is reasonable to conclude that MT and AxAS reflect a later phase in the development of the text.200 As a result, this gloss on the temple that has been inserted at the end of the palace account in MT may be of postexilic date. No such note appears in Chronicles. Moreover, the Chronicler describes a different arrangement of courts (2 Chr 4:9; 7:7; 20:5) and he does not mention an “inner court.” Likewise, no such tradition is found in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, which gives a different explanation of the masonry of the walls of the courts (Ezek 46:23). If this later gloss were a postexilic addition to 1 Kgs 7, then we would rightly expect to find it in 2 Chr 3‒4 or in Ezekiel’s vision of the temple. The different arrangement of the courts in Chronicles and the absence of this kind of note in both Chronicles and Ezekiel suggest that together MT and B/Ant. may witness a preexilic augmentation of the Hebrew text of of 1 Kgs 7:12 (3 Kgdms 7:49): the older tradition – without ‫ּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫ – וְ ַל ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ַה ְּפנ‬is reflected in B/Ant.; the later tradition – with ‫ּול ֻא ָלם ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ימית‬ ִ ִ‫– וְ ַל ֲח ַצר ֵּבית־יְ הוָ ה ַה ְּפנ‬ has been preserved in MT and AxAS. Last but not least, we have to take into consideration Ezra 6:4. Cyrus’s decree to reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem explicitly mentioned that the temple should be made with three rows of stone201 and one row of wood. This note can be interpreted in two contrary ways. On the one hand, since it appears in a postexilic text, it must refer to the postexilic temple. Hence, the addition in MT and AxAS reflects the postexilic temple. Conversely, Cyrus’s orders may 198

Würthwein 1977, 74. Vincent and Steve 1956, 424; Mulder 1998, 298. 200 MT would correspond to the second stage in the development of the text of Kings (Schenker 2010, 16). 201 However, Ezra refers to large stones, whereas 1 Kgs 6:36 and 7:12 refer to dressed stones. 198 199

154

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

have been intended to maintain continuity with the preexilic architectural tradition.202 In this scenario, Cyrus consulted the Jews around him before issuing his decree, and the measurements of the new temple as well as the technique of its construction were not dictated arbitrarily but reflected the temple just before its destruction.203 The addition of the half-verse (1 Kgs 7:12b) in MT and AxAS shows that at a certain point, the redactors describing the preexilic temple felt the need to note that some parts of the temple, in particular the walls of the courts and the ulam, were built according to a new “earthquake code” to make them more resistant to tremors. Examining 1 Kgs 6, we noticed that no such technique is mentioned in the description of the temple building, including its ulam. Taking into account both textual variants as well as other building accounts, we may conclude that the ulam of the temple was at some point reconstructed in a manner intended to provide some structural resilience in the face of earthquakes. Indeed, the same building technique is known from preexilic structures in the sacred precinct of Tel Dan.204 In the end, it must be noted that the close connection of the ulam with the temple walls also permits interpreting this “ulam of the temple” as a structure associated with the walls of the temple, and thus not identical with the ulam of the temple building itself. In this case, the “ulam of the temple” would have been part of the walls of the courts. The ulam and the bronze columns Outside of 1 Kgs 7:12 the term ulam occurs twice more in 1 Kgs 7, referring to the ulam of the temple complex. Verses 19 and 21 are notes in the midst of the description of two bronze columns of the temple (1 Kgs 7:15–22). These notes specify the location of the columns. The former reads ‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫“ ָּב‬in the ulam” and the latter ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫“ ְל ֻא ָלם ַה ֵה‬belonging to the ulam of the hekal.” Both verses have provoked much discussion since they diverge from 2 Chr 3:17, according to which both columns were in front of the hekal. Efforts to coordinate the notes on the location of the columns have given rise to different hypotheses. First, the expression ‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫ ָּב‬in 7:19 should not be read “in the ulam”; rather, ‫אּולם‬ ָ is a noun to be derived from the root ‫ אלם‬II “to bind.” In this sense the expression ‫ באולם‬would mean “in a bound form.”205 Similarly, 1 Kgs 7:21 is harmonized with 2 Chr 3:17 and the preposition ‫ ל‬is translated “in front of” or “at” (cf. NJB, NRSV). Since none of the versions attest such an interpretation, some scholars remain hesitant

202 A comparison of Ezra 1:2–4 with 6:3–5 shows that the latter is more reliable (Japhet 2006, 158–159). 203 Yeivin 1964, 338–340. 204 Biran 1998, 40. 205 Zwickel 1999, 114: “in gebundener Form.”

4.4 The ulam

155

to change the Hebrew text and prefer to translate ‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫ ָּב‬as “in the ulam.” To reconcile the bronze columns in front of the temple with the columns in the ulam, this group of scholars suggested that the ulam had four columns: two in front of the ulam and two within it.207 This theory remains problematic, because it would then be necessary to suppose that 1 Kgs 7:15–22 describes four columns. The complexity of this text is also reflected in the Greek traditions, which even changed the order of the verses. The Hebrew expressions ‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫ ָּב‬and ‫ְל ֻא ָלם‬ are rendered with the preposition κατά and with a genitive208 respectively, but no version explicitly places the columns “in front of” the ulam. In sum, the biblical text uses two expressions: “the ulam” and “the ulam of the hekal.” Moreover, the tradition preserved in MT and the Greek witnesses, which with a few differences is documented in all manuscripts, permits the conclusion that both bronze columns were located in the ulam. 206

4.4.5 The ulam in 3 Kgdms 6:36 The last description of the ulam to be taken into consideration is the second half of 3 Kgdms 6:36, which adds a new aspect to our study: καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε καταπέτασμα τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ναοῦ “and he (Solomon) built the curtain of the court of the ulam of the temple, which (i.e., the ulam) was in front of the hekal.”209 This reading has been preserved in B and Ant.; the other manuscripts omit this verse. The term καταπέτασμα “curtain” appears in the book of Exodus where it describes the curtain of the tabernacle, likewise in Numbers and Leviticus. The curtain in the temple appears only in 2 Chr 3:14. At first glance, the addition in B and Ant. seems to be dependent on Chronicles. However, there are important differences that suggest the opposite. The Chronicler’s version focused on the material of which the curtain was made, likening the curtain to that in the tabernacle account (Exod 26:31). These details are, however, omitted in 3 Kgdms 6:36. On the contrary, in 3 Kgdms 6:36 no material is mentioned and both B and Ant. emphasize that the curtain210 belonged to the court of the ulam. Even though in Chronicles the location of the curtain is not clearly mentioned, it is generally agreed that it was the curtain separating the debir from the hekal (cf. Exod 26:33; 27:21; 30:6; Lev 4:6; 16:2). The ulam according to B and Ant. had a court, or was connected with a court (τῆς αὐλῆς

Gray 1976, 184; Mulder 1998, 300; Cogan 2001, 259. Already in Salignac Fénelon’s 1904 reconstruction of the temple’s layout (F. 27), the ulam had four pillars, two inside and two outside. The porch had steps and was separated from the hekal by a wall with a gate. See also Busink 1970, 173; Ouellette 1976, 11; and Herr 2000, 12–13. 208 ἔστησεν τοὺς στύλους τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ ναοῦ. 209 Since ναός is a normal Greek rendering of ‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ה‬, ֵ I translated ναός as hekal. 210 Manuscript 127, belonging to the Antiochian tradition, reads “curtains.” 206 207

156

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

τοῦ αιλαμ), and this court had (a) curtain(s).211 Contrariwise, the descriptions of the curtain in the tabernacle tradition and Leviticus and Numbers never mention the ulam, which underlines all the more strongly the independence of 3 Kgdms 6:36 from Chronicles and the tabernacle account. This difference shows that the καταπέτασμα in 3 Kgdms 6:36 is different from the curtain in Chronicles. The reading attested in important manuscripts of 3 Kgdms 6:36 should be considered an independent tradition. According to this tradition, the ulam had (a) curtain(s) (καταπέτασμα τῆς αὐλῆς τοῦ αιλαμ τοῦ οἴκου; “the curtain(s) of the ulam of the court of the temple”). 4.4.6 The ulam in 1 Kgs 6:3 For our purpose the most important occurrence of the term ulam is in 1 Kgs 6:3. Having examined the other occurrences of ulam in Kings and other biblical texts, we are ready to tackle the difficulties of this verse. First Kings 6:3 reads ‫ל־פּנֵ י‬ ְ ‫אַמּה ָר ְחבֹּו ַע‬ ָ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ר ַֹחב ַה ָבּיִת ֶע ֶשׂר ָבּ‬ ְ ‫אָרכֹּו ַע‬ ְ ‫אַמּה‬ ָ ‫יכל ַה ַבּיִת ֶע ְשׂ ִרים‬ ַ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫אוּלם ַע‬ ָ ‫וְ ָה‬ ‫ה ָבּיִת‬. ַ Even a cursory reading of this nominal sentence reveals several hurdles to be overcome (cf. §4.2.2). The problems can be divided into three groups: the relationship of the versions to the original text, the meaning of the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ and the later redactional layers. The versions A comparison of the versions shows that MT and Ant. represent the best preserved text, as the other witnesses are marked by corruptions and emendations. Accordingly Rahlfs’s reconstruction of LXX, together with MT, is the most reliable version of 1 Kgs 6:3 we have.212 The variants important for this study pertain to the location of the ulam. The Hebrew text contains two phrases describing its location: ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬and ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ע‬. ַ The first phrase, ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫“ ַע‬in front of the hekal of the house” is paralleled in full only in AS; B and a2 read simply πρόσωπον τοῦ ναοῦ, using ναός as an equivalent of hekal and omitting MT’s “of the house.” The Antiochian tradition, on the other hand, expands B and a2’s reading to κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ναοῦ Κυρίου. An important reading represented by the Armenian version reads only “house.” Finally, manuscript x (Rahlfs 247) has only one prepositional phrase: κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ οἴκου. In sum, the manuscripts render MT’s ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ֵה‬ in four ways: “the hekal” (B and a2 = Rahlfs’s reconstructed text), “the hekal of the house” (MT followed by AS), “the hekal of the Lord” (Antiochian tradition), and “the house” (Armenian). 211 We can speculate that such a curtain would have separated the court of the ulam from the rest of the temple. 212 For different translations and interpretations see DeVries 2003, 87. Moreover, B presents an abbreviated version, omitting the numeral “ten” through oversight (Burney 1903, 62). A and related texts added the heights of the temple.

4.4 The ulam

157

Whereas MT’s first phrase describing the location of the ulam, ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹחב‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ ‫ה ָּביִת‬, ַ is omitted or variously rendered in the Greek and other manuscripts, the second phrase, ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ or its equivalent, has been preserved in all manuscripts. The compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ The next problem to address is the problematic compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ע‬. ַ Of the many verses in which it occurs, only a few are indeed relevant for interpreting 1 Kgs 6:3. According to HAHw (4:1063) the compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬can mean “on, upon”213 or “in front of, opposite.”214 Applied to the temple architecture, it indicates relative position in one of two dimensions. Vertically, it signifies “on, upon”; thus in 1 Kgs 7:42 the capitals were located on top of the pillars (cf. 2 Chr 4:13). Horizontally, it signifies “in front of”; thus the ends of the poles of the ark stuck out in front of the debir (1 Kgs 8:8 and 2 Chr 5:9215). In order to determine the meaning of ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬in 1 Kgs 6:3, we have to take into consideration that the compound preposition is repeated three times in this verse.

‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫וְ ָה‬ ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ַ (1(‫‏‬ ‫ֶע ְׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה ָא ְרּכֹו‬ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹחב ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ַ (2(‫‏‬ ‫ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְחּבֹו‬ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫( ַע‬3(‫‏‬

The expressions ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬and ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬fit the latter interpretation of ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬and indicate that the ulam was “before” or “in front of,” respectively, the hekal of the temple or the temple itself.216 Most of the important ancient versions reflect this interpretation and translate the first and third occurrences of ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ with the same phrase, κατὰ πρόσωπον: αιλαμ κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ ναοῦ … κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ οἴκου (B; cf. also A, Ant.).217 Although when ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is used in the sense of “in front of,” it often expresses that one object is in direct contact with In this case, the noun ‫ ָּפנֶ ה‬means “surface” and consequently the compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬indicates “on, upon, on the top of,” in particular with spatial nouns such as land, ground, soil, field, water, or wilderness; cf., for example, Lev 16:14; 2 Kgs 9:37; Isa 19:8 (Simian-Yofre 2001, 11:613). 214 In this case, the noun ‫ ָּפנֶ ה‬means “face” and consequently the compound preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ means “face to face with.” In connection with toponyms, this prepositional phrase means “near, opposite, in the direction of”; cf., for example, Josh 13:25; 19:11 (Simian-Yofre 2001, 11:613). 215 For similar cases see 1 Kgs 7:6; Ezek 42:8; 2 Chr 3:17. 216 See, for example, Noth 1968, 95. J. Gray (1976, 161) is one of the few commentators who thinks that the second and third occurrences of the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬have the same meaning. He translates: “and the vestibule before the nave of the Temple was twenty cubits in length along the front of the breadth of the Temple, its breadth (i.e., depth) along the front of the Temple being ten cubits.” 217 The prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is translated as κατά πρὸσωπον τοῦ also in 2 Chr 3:17. 213

158

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

another (cf. 2 Kgs 4:29, 31), it can also express that one object is “facing” or “opposite” another, i.e., not directly attached to the second object (cf. Gen 23:19; Num 3:4; 2 Sam 15:18). Thus the first and the third propositional phrases have a locative function: they specify the position of the ulam before the temple, but they do not indicate whether the structure was directly annexed to the temple building. While most modern translations follow the ancient interpretations of the first and third occurrences of ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ both modern and ancient translations vary widely in their handling of the second occurrence, in the phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹחב ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ lit. “in front of the width of the temple.”218 A similar expression occurs three times in Chronicles, twice in 2 Chr 3:4 and once in 3:8. Second Chronicles 3:8 reads, “And he made the house of the Holy of Holies; its length in front of the width of the temple (was) twenty cubits.” In this case most translations and interpreters agree that the propositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ means “corresponding to,” “equal to”; i.e., the length of the Holy of Holies corresponded to the width of the temple. A similar usage of ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is found in 2 Chr 3:4. This verse rewrites 1 Kgs 6:3, changing significantly its syntax and meaning: ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָהא ֶֹרְך ַע‬ ְ ‫אּולם ֲא ֶׁשר ַע‬ ָ ‫וה‬ ָ ‫ימה זָ ָהב ָטהֹור‬ ָ ִ‫ב־ה ַּביִת ַאּמֹות ֶע ְׂש ִרים וְ ַהּג ַֹבּה ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶע ְׂש ִרים וַ יְ ַצ ֵּפהּו ִמ ְּפנ‬ ַ ‫ר ַֹח‬.219 The problematic sequence of prepositional phrases ‫ב־ה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹח‬ ְ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָהא ֶֹרְך ַע‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is rendered in the Greek manuscripts as κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ οἴκου μῆκος ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πλάτους τοῦ οἴκου, and most scholars agree that the first τοῦ οἴκου was omitted in MT due to homoioteleuton.220 According to this approach, the Hebrew text is corrupt and should be interpreted in light of the Greek translations. However, such an emendation of the text is problematic since it is motivated by the desire to harmonize 2 Chr 3:4 with 1 Kgs 6:3. The salient differences between the descriptions of the temple in Kings and Chronicles make it clear that the Chronicler felt free to modify the presentation of the temple found in 1 Kgs 6.221 Consequently, to emend 2 Chr 3:4 according to 1 Kgs 6:3 would mean altering the Chronicler’s image of the temple.222 On the contrary, if we accept that the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬can also mean “corresponding to,” as in 2 Chr 3:8, then we can translate For a short summary of the ancient versions and modern proposals, see DeVries 2003, 87. A literal translation would be, “The ulam, which was in front of the length in front of the width of the temple, (was) twenty cubits and the height (was) hundred twenty cubits, and he (Solomon) overlaid it with pure gold.” 220 NRSV translates: “The vestibule in front of the nave of the house was twenty cubits long, across the width of the house.” See also Klein 2012, 42. 221 The description of the temple in Chronicles uses partially different vocabulary (cf. the term ‫ ַה ַּביִת ַהּגָ דֹול‬in 2 Chr 3:5). Other differences include the omission of several details (e.g., the height of the temple, 2 Chr 3:2) and the addition of others (e.g., the ulam was overlaid with gold, 2 Chr 3:4); likewise, some architectural features are missing (e.g., the structure surrounding the temple) while others have been added (e.g., the upper chamber in 2 Chr 3:9). 222 Some commentators are more cautious about emending the text; see, for example, Dillard 1987, 26. 218 219

4.4 The ulam

159

2 Chr 3:4 without altering MT: “The ulam, which corresponded to the length (and) to the width of the temple, (was) twenty cubits, and (its) height was one hundred and twenty cubits.” According to MT, the Chronicler did not specify the location of the ulam but rather gave details of its construction. The ulam in 2 Chr 3:4 was a tower-like edifice whose interior was overlaid with gold. In all three cases, when the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is followed by a measurement (length or width), it does not have a locative meaning but means “corresponding to.”223 This casts new light on 1 Kgs 6:3 and the verse can be translated thus:

‫אּולם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָה‬ ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ַ ‫ ע ְׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה ָא ְרּכֹו‬ ֶ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹחב ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ַ ‫ ע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה ָר ְחּבֹו‬ ֶ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ַ

And the ulam in front of (opposite) the hekal of the temple twenty cubits (was) its length corresponding to the width of the temple ten in cubit measure was its width in front of (opposite) the temple.

This translation has some important consequences for the interpretation of this difficult verse. The prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬in this verse assumes two meanings: “in front of” or “opposite,” and “corresponding to.” The locative meaning is appropriate for the first and the third occurrences in the verse.224 However, because ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬can mean “in front of” as well as “opposite,” it is not possible to infer from the Hebrew text whether the ulam was attached to the temple building or whether it stood at some distance opposite the temple. Redactional layers The above analysis of the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬showed that its second occurrence in 1 Kgs 6:3 does not have a locative meaning (“in front of”) but should be translated “corresponding to.”225 This meaning of the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is quite rare and similar cases occur only three times in Chronicles. This is the first sign that the verse in question was handled by a later editor influenced by the language of Chronicles. Moreover, if the first and the third occurrences of ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬are interpreted as “in front of,” the verse in fact gives two locations for the ulam: (1) in front of (opposite) the hekal of the temple ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫;ע‬ ַ and (2) in front of (opposite) the temple ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ע‬. ַ Why would the author have felt obliged to specify the location of the ulam twice in two different ways? This repetition was also seen as a problem by the versions, which tended to correct the first phrase A possible explanation is that the preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬functions here as ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫( ֶא‬DeVries 2003, 87). 224 Some scholars emend the text to create a parallelism between the second and third prepositional phrases: “corresponding to the width of the temple … corresponding to the length of the temple” (Stade and Schwally 1904, 86). 225 Burney 1903, 61; Mulder 1998, 233; Cogan 2001, 234. 223

160

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

(‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫)ע‬. ַ In addition, the text uses two different conventions when giving dimensions in cubits, ‫ ַא ָּמה‬and ‫ּב ַא ָּמה‬. ָ S. J. DeVries’s study on the different uses of the word “cubit” showed that the text contains different sources, as the ‫ ָּב ַא ָּמה‬convention is characteristic of a citation from the royal archives.226 The discrepancies among the manuscripts and the redundancy of ‫יכל‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ַע‬ ‫ ַה ַּביִת‬and ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬led M. Noth and E. Würthwein to the conclusion that the phrase ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ in whole or in part, was added to harmonize an older text with a newer concept of the temple.227 S. Garofalo recommended a conservative approach toward reconstructing both the original text and the architectural details of the temple.228 Following his advice, we can safely conclude only that later redactors adjusted 1 Kgs 6:3 to match their concept of the temple. Nevertheless, speculating on the details of redaction may provide a useful working hypothesis. Aware of the limits of such hypotheses, I suggest that three layers can be distinguished in the final text. The earliest layer, containing the prepositional phrase ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ַה ָּביִת‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ is attested in almost all manuscripts and it stated that the ulam was built in front of the house. This layer also included the measurements expressed with ‫ּב ַא ָּמה‬. ָ Thus the earliest form of 1 Kgs 6:3 reported that the ulam was built in front of the temple and that its width was ten cubits. Subsequently the text was altered to ‫יכל ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ֵה‬ ְ ‫ע‬, ַ reflecting a need to locate the ulam in front of the hekal. Finally, following a precedent in Chronicles, the phrase ‫ב־ה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ר ַֹח‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬was used to specify the connection between the length and width of the temple and the ulam. 4.4.7 Conclusion Let us summarize our investigation of the term ulam. Above all, it must be noted that the term does not refer exclusively to a single architectural feature. Whereas in 1 Kgs 6‒7 the term is used of both the temple and the palace architecture, in Chronicles and Ezekiel it is reserved for the temple architecture. In accounts of the palace the term describes three different structures: a building – an independent structure similar to a palace; a hall – a section of the royal palace; and a porch – a small structure attached to another building. In the temple precincts as well, ulam names different constructions. In Ezekiel it describes the rear halls of the inner and outer gates of the temple. The ulam of the northern inner gate was the more prominent one, since it was transformed into an entire complex serving for the preparation of sacrificial animals. Moreover, the term ulam also refers to a structure connected with the temple building. According to Ezekiel it was a large vestibule with two columns and other constructions attached to it; according to Chronicles it was a large edifice, similar to a tower, that contained different DeVries 2003, 91–92. Noth 1968, 97; Würthwein 1977, 163. 228 Garofalo 1951, 61. 226 227

4.4 The ulam

161

compartments. The question becomes even more complicated if we take into consideration MT and AxAS. According to these versions the ulam of the temple building was at some point rebuilt according to a new “earthquake code.” Finally, according to 3 Kgdms 6:36 the ulam had a court with a curtain. Our analysis of 1 Kgs 6:3 showed that the verse contains some later additions. Moreover, a study of the preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬indicated that the ulam could have been located directly in front of the temple or opposite it. Bearing in mind the multivalence of this architectural term, we can rightly ask, What was the ulam of 1 Kgs 6:3? Was it a large edifice, a vestibule, or a small porch? In addition, an attentive reader will perceive some logical problems.229 The ulam is not mentioned at all in 1 Kgs 6 outside of v. 3. Furthermore, the ulam is not included in the dimensions of the temple given in 1 Kgs 6:2; its dimensions are given separately in the following verse. Does this mean that the ulam was not an integral part of the temple?230 Particularly puzzling is the omission of the ulam in 1 Kgs 6:29–36. After describing the decoration of the debir and the hekal (1 Kgs 6:29–35), the author skipped directly to the description of the inner court. Why did he omit the ulam? In Chronicles the ulam was inlaid with gold; according to Ezekiel it was decorated with palmettes and false windows. In Kings, on the other hand, the ulam appears in the description of the bronze columns and its ornamentation is not discussed. Are 1 Kgs 7:19 and 21 later additions? Also, why does 1 Kgs 6:3 pass over the columns of the ulam? According to Chronicles the ulam had doors; however, no doors are associated with the ulam in 1 Kgs 6, although the doors of the temple are carefully described (1 Kgs 6:32–33). Ezekiel’s envisioned temple stood on an elevated platform, and to reach the ulam it was necessary to climb a staircase. Neither Kings nor Chronicles mentions stairs leading to the ulam. The ulam also appears in MT’s account of the earthquake-resistant rebuilding of the temple precincts (1 Kgs 7:12; see above). Was this ulam a later construction? Did this ulam belong to the temple building or to the court? Keeping in mind the complexity of the data analyzed above, I suggest that the biblical corpus does not present a coherent image of the ulam and that the biblical texts contain a combination of different traditions. It is possible, however, to distinguish three literary traditions on the ulam that have been telescoped in the biblical texts. No ulam, or the ulam as a shallow porch: The omission of the term ulam in important descriptions of the temple suggests that the most ancient strata of the text did not mention the ulam, perhaps because it was regarded as an unimportant part of the temple. This early tradition is characterized by the expression ‫ָּב ַא ָּמה‬ plus a numeral, which S. J. DeVries explained as a form of notation used in the royal archives. The tradition states that the ulam was a small porch in front of the 229 230

This list adds some new elements to a similar list drawn up by Meyers (1983, 170–171). Chronicles follows the logic of Kings, contrary to Ezekiel.

162

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

temple, spanning only ten cubits of the front wall of the temple. E. Würthwein went even further in his conclusions and suggested that the original temple did not have an ulam but was simply a bipartite structure comprising a debir and a hekal.231 This early tradition finds parallels in several shrines that had no entrance hall,232 a shallow porch,233 or a gate with some external decoration.234 The ulam as an anteroom: The second tradition on the ulam is the best known and has generally been accepted by scholars as the one that best reflects the layout of the preexilic temple.235 This tradition interprets the ulam as an anteroom (Anteraum), a vestibule attached to the temple. The vestibule was as wide as the temple itself. This ulam underwent some changes. According to 1 Kgs 6:3 it was ten cubits deep, according to Ezekiel twelve cubits. Whereas in 1 Kgs 6 the ulam is not decorated, in Ezekiel it is decorated with false windows and palmettes and has other structures attached to it. The development of this ulam can be observed in conflicting references to the position of its columns, placing them either in front of the vestibule as freestanding columns, or in the vestibule, similar to bītḫillāni rooms.236 The questions of whether the ulam had gates or whether it was roofed can also be resolved by positing different phases for the vestibule-like ulam.237 This kind of ulam corresponds to a typical Antentempel as excavated at sites such as Tell Tainat and Ain Dara.238 The Tell Qasile temples demonstrate a shift from a temple without a porch (Stratum XII and XI) to a temple with an entrance hall (Stratum X).239 A tower-like ulam: The third tradition on the ulam is reflected in 2 Chr 3:4. The ulam is no longer a vestibule but a tall edifice dominating the acropolis of Jerusalem. Symmachus’s translation of ulam as πρόπυλον “propylaeum” suggests, as some scholars noted, that this type of ulam corresponds better to the propylaea of Egyptian temples.240 Such a propylaeum-like ulam would have been the most Würthwein 1977, 62. Temples without a porch or vestibule are not exceptional in the Levant; see, for example, the temples in Tell Qasile Stratum XII and XII (Mazar 1980, fig. 13; Mierse 2012, fig. 20). 233 A one-room temple with a shallow porch has been excavated in Carchemish (Mierse 2012, 108–111, fig. 36). 234 Several terracotta shrines, especially examples showing signs of Phoenician influence (from Achzib and Tell Kamid el-Loz), suggest that one widely diffused temple model was the one-room shrine (Culican 1976). 235 Lumby 1909, 55; Busink 1970, 168–171; Mulder 1998, 233–234; Fritz 2003, 70; Hurowitz 2009, 35. 236 Ouellette 1969, 370–378. 237 For attempts to reconstruct the vestibule or portico style of ulam, see Meyers 1983; Zwickel 1999, 60–61; and Cogan 2001, 237. 238 For a comprehensive chart of entrance halls in the Levant during the second and first millennia BCE, see Wightman 2006, 151. 239 Arnold 1992, 14–28. 240 Barnes 1908, 46–47; Barthélemy 1982, 478. 231 232

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple

163

impressive part of the temple, equipped with its own inner chambers and rooms, and indeed the ulam became a synecdoche for the temple in the Chronicler’s time. According to this tradition, the ulam would have resembled the much earlier migdol-type temples of the Middle Bronze Age.241 Finally, a note should be added on the location of the ulam. Analysis of the ambiguous preposition ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬showed that there were two possible locations for the ulam: immediately in front of or directly attached to the temple, and opposite the temple. The most logical location for the ulam would have been directly in front of the temple, whether it was a porch (as in the first tradition), a vestibule (the second tradition), or a tower (the third tradition) attached to the temple building. If, however, ‫ל־ּפנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬is interpreted as “opposite” the temple – i.e., not directly attached to the temple building – then the ulam would have been part of the walls surrounding the temple.242 Thus, according to Ezekiel, one of the ulams – that of the northern gate – was expanded and became the place for preparing sacrificial animals. In this case it would make sense to read “between the ulam and the altar” in Ezek 8:16 and Joel 2:17 not as references to the ulam of the temple but to the ulam of the temple gate, in particular the ulam where the sacrifices were prepared before they were offered on the altar. From the extant material it is difficult to assess which concepts of the ulam are preexilic, which are postexilic, and which may only be figments of the imagination of the biblical scribes,243 since there are arguments to be made for and against each possibility. However, I believe that the analysis presented above supports the conclusion that on the literary level, the biblical texts combined multiple traditions on the ulam, among which the familiar concept of the ulam as a vestibule or portico attached to the temple building is but one.

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple Thus far we have considered variations in the reports of individual architectural features of the temple. Variations in the dimensions assigned to the temple as

For an isometric reconstruction of two towers from the migdol-type temple 2133 at Hazor, see Albers 2004b, Tf. 49. Vincent and Steve reconstructed the ulam as a high façade attached to the temple. According to this reconstruction, the ulam was the highest point of the temple, the hekal was shorter, and the shortest part of the temple was the debir. The result is a very symmetric temple based on triangles, similar in style to Egyptian buildings, which Vincent and Steve describe as an “épure rythmique longitudinale des proportions” (Vincent and Steve 1956, 388, fig. 112). See also Möhlenbrink 1932, 104–118. 242 Barnes 1908, 46. 243 See, for example, Hurowitz 2005, 65–68. 241

164

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

a whole may also betray stages in its development. The witnesses to 1 Kgs 6:2 preserve five different sets of dimensions of the temple (length × width × height).244

60×20×30 60×20×20 60×20×60 40×20×30 40×20×25

MT, AxS AE Josephus M BNLqZ bd-jm-pstvwyza2c2e2 (main witnesses: B and Ant.)

4.5.1 Height of the Temple The dimension of the temple that varies most among the witnesses is its height. The extant manuscripts present four options: 20 cubits (AE), 25 cubits (mainly B and Ant.), 30 cubits (M [Codex Coislinianus]), and 60 cubits (Josephus). Ezra 6:3 reports that the returnees from the exile were commanded to build the temple 60 cubits high, the same figure that Josephus gives. Finally, according to 2 Chr 3:3 the temple measured 60 × 20 cubits, but the text does not give the height of the temple. The only height the Chronicler mentions is that of the ulam, 120 cubits. The variety of possibilities requires careful consideration of the question of fluctuations in the temple’s height over time. In the biblical accounts it is possible to distinguish two factors that might be responsible for alterations to the height of the temple: the rebuilding of its roof and ceiling, and the addition of an upper floor. Ceiling: The ceiling of the temple is described in 1 Kgs 6:9, 15 (= 3 Kgdms 6:14, 16). A comparison of MT (1 Kgs 6:9) and B/Ant. (3 Kgdms 6:14) shows that, on the one hand, both texts agree that cedar was used in the construction of the ceiling; on the other hand, MT adds ‫ּוׂש ֵדר ֹת‬ ְ ‫ּגֵ ִבים‬, missing in B and Ant. The word ‫ ּגֵ ִבים‬is a hapax legomenon and ‫ ְׂש ֵדר ֹת‬occurs elsewhere only in 2 Kgs 11:8, 15 and 2 Chr 23:14. Although several proposals have been advanced, the meaning of these terms remains hazy.245 In addition, MT (1 Kgs 6:15a) and B/Ant. (3 Kgdms 6:16aα–β) have different understandings of the ceiling of the temple, as the following chart shows.246

There are two manuscripts that omit one number. Manuscript q omits the second number and reads 40 × – × 25, whereas Lv omits the first number and reads – × 20 × 25. 245 For example, “drain pipes and eavestroughs,” “panels and rows,” “flat earthen roof,” “dwarf pine and rows of cedar,” “coffers and aligned beams,” “coffers in a row” (Gray 1976, 162; Cogan 2001, 240–241; Mulder 1998, 248–250). A radically different proposal, based on Egyptian parallels, is to translate the phrase as “Nebengebäude und Säulenhallen” (sidebuildings and columned halls) (Görg 1979, 15). For other proposed etymologies of both words, see BDB 155, 690, and HAHw 1:191; 5:1278. 246 The first part of the verse is studied below. 244

165

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple NRSV He lined the walls of the house on the inside with boards of cedar; from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling, he covered them on the inside with wood.

MT ‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬ ‫יְתה ְּב ַצ ְלעֹות ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ָ ‫ִמ ַּב‬ ‫ִמ ַּק ְר ַקע ַה ַּביִת ַעד־‬ ‫ִקירֹות ַה ִּס ֻּפן ִצ ָּפה ֵעץ‬ ‫ִמ ָּביִת‬

B and Ant.

NETS

καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τοὺς τοίχους τοῦ οἴκου διὰ ξύλων κεδρίνων ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐδάφους τοῦ οἴκου καὶ ἕως τῶν δοκῶν καὶ ἕως τῶν τοίχων

And he built the walls of the house with cedar boards from the floor of the house and as far as the rafters and to the walls;

ἐκοιλοστάθμησεν συνεχόμενοςa ξύλοις ἔσωθεν

he made a coffered ceiling enclosed with boardsb within.

Notes a The Antiochian version reads συνεχόμενα. b NETS translates the plural συνεχόμενα, as in the Antiochian version.

The second part of the verse reads in B/Ant. ἐκοιλοστάθμησεν συνεχόμενα ξύλοις ἔσωθεν “he (Solomon) made a coffered ceiling enclosed with wooden (boards) within” (NETS), whereas MT reads ‫ד־קירֹות ַה ִּס ֻּפן ִצ ָּפה ֵעץ ִמ ָּביִת‬ ִ ‫מ ַּק ְר ַקע ַה ַּביִת ַע‬, ִ lit. “from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling he covered (them) on the inside with wood.” M. J. Mulder wondered whether B/Ant. and MT might reflect the same original text.247 I believe that the differences between these two versions are too great to be harmonized without compromising the biblical text. The active verb in MT, ‫“ ִצ ָּפה‬he overlaid,” has no equivalent in B/Ant. On the contrary, the active verb in B/Ant. is ἐκοιλοστάθμησεν “he made a (coffered) ceiling.” MT has an equivalent for the Greek verb meaning “to make a ceiling,” but it is a noun, completing the construct chain ‫ד־קירֹות ַה ִּס ֻּפן‬ ִ ‫“ ַע‬to the rafters248 of the ceiling.” In addition, the direct object of the verb ἐκοιλοστάθμησεν is συνεχόμενα,249 lit. “confined, enclosed,” which has no equivalent in MT. Thus B/Ant. describes the construction of the ceiling as a separate activity: Solomon built a ceiling with enclosed sections (a coffered ceiling) using an unspecified type of wood. A comparison of 1 Kgs 6:9 and 15 reveals that the former is more specific and describes the components of the ceiling with the obscure terms ‫ּוׂש ֵדר ֹת‬ ְ ‫ּגֵ ִבים‬, whereas the latter speaks more generally about the rafters of the ceiling. Contrariwise, in B/Ant., 3 Kgdms 6:14 describes the ceiling in more general terms as made of cedar, whereas v. 16 specifies the type of ceiling by means of συνεχόμενα “coffered ceiling.” It seems that both textual traditions describe the same ceiling, but the details in 1 Kgs 6:9 (‫ּוׂש ֵדר ֹת‬ ְ ‫ )ּגֵ ִבים‬and 3 Kgdms 6:16 (συνεχόμενα), notwithstanding all the uncertainties of interpretation, do not match. Differences in vocabulary point to two different techniques used for the construction of the Mulder 1998, 254–255. The word ‫ ִקירֹות‬is to be read here as ‫“ קורות‬rafters” (Barthélemy 1982, 341–342). 249 B reads συνεχόμενος. 247 248

166

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

ceiling. The omission of the technical terms ‫ּוׂש ֵדר ֹת‬ ְ ‫ ּגֵ ִבים‬in B and Ant. as well as the rewriting of 1 Kgs 6:15 (cf. below) suggests that the technique described in MT is of later date.250 Upper floor: First Kings 6 does not contain any reference to an upper floor of the temple. However, 2 Chr 3:9 describes upper chambers of the temple that were overlaid with gold. In other parts of the Bible this term is used for chambers on the upper floor of a structure (2 Sam 19:1; 1 Kgs 17:19, 23). Similarly, 1 Chr 28:11 mentions the upper chambers of the ulam. In brief, whereas the temple in Kings seems to be a single-story temple, the temple in Chronicles stood at least two stories tall.251 To summarize, the versions and text-types assign five different heights to the temple. The different techniques used to construct the ceiling of the temple, as well as the Chronicler’s reference to the upper chambers of the temple, suggest that the height of the temple changed over time. Comparing Chronicles and Kings, S. Yeivin concluded that the temple was rebuilt and that an upper floor was added. According to him, Chronicles reflects the last phase of the preexilic temple, whereas Kings reflects the earlier phases.252 4.5.2 Layout of the Temple The dimensions of the temple presented above show that all manuscripts agree that the temple was 20 cubits wide. As for the length, there are two variants, 40 and 60 cubits. Accordingly the manuscripts give two layouts of the temple: a shorter temple (40 × 20) is primarily attested in B and Ant. and a longer temple (60 × 20) is found in MT and related manuscripts. After giving the overall dimensions of the temple in 1 Kgs 6:2 (3 Kgdms 6:6), the narrative returns to the layout of the temple in 1 Kgs 6:15–22. A comparison of the extant manuscripts shows that with minor differences, the description of the layout of the temple has been preserved in two forms: a longer version (1 Kgs 6:15–22; MT and related manuscripts) and a shorter version (3 Kgdms 6:16–21; mainly B and Ant.). An examination of both versions shows that the consonantal text of MT can be explained as an expansion of the shorter version in B and Ant.253 In the following chart, words and phrases that occur exclusively in MT or B appear in gray.

250 251

29).

Würthwein 1977, 60. The upper chambers are generally interpreted as the area above the debir (Dillard 1987,

Yeivin 1964. I use the unvocalized text of MT since different vocalizations of ‫ לפני‬lead to different interpretations of the text. 252 253

167

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple Masoretic Text a

Codex Vaticanus

‫ויבן את־עׂשרים אמה מירכותי הבית בצלעות‬ ‫ מבית‬c‫ לו‬b‫‌ארזים מן־הקרקע עד־הקירות ויבן‬ ‫ וארבעים באמה היה‬17 ‫לדביר לקדׁש הקדׁשים‬ ‫ וארז אל־הבית פנימה‬18 ‫הבית הוא ההיכל לפני‬ ‫מקלעת פקעים ופטורי צצים הכל ארז אין אבן‬ ‫ ודביר בתוך־הבית מפנימה הכין לתתן ׁשם‬19 ‫נראה‬ ‫ ולפני הדביר עׂשרים אמה‬20 ‫את־ארון ברית יהוה‬ ‫ארך ועׂשרים אמה רחב ועׂשרים אמה קומתו‬ 16‫‫‬

καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τοὺς εἴκοσι πήχεις ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τοῦ τοίχου τὸ πλευρὸν τὸ ἓν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐδάφους ἕως τῶν δοκῶν καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐκ τοῦ δαβεὶρ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων 18 καὶ τεσσαράκοντα πηχῶν ἦν ὁ ναὸς κατὰ πρόσωπον τοῦ δαβεὶρ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἔσωθεν δοῦναι ἐκεῖ τὴν κιβωτὸν διαθήκης Κυρίου 19 εἴκοσι πήχεις μῆκος καὶ εἴκοσι πήχεις πλάτος καὶ εἴκοσι πήχεις τὸ ὕψος αὐτοῦ 17

Notes a B: “the house”; Ant.: “the wall.” b B, Ant.: “he did.” c B: omitted; Ant.: “the wall.”

A study of both traditions, I believe, will cast new light on how the temple developed. “Twenty cubits at the rear of the temple” (1 Kgs 6:16a) The first verse important for understanding the layout of the temple is 1 Kgs 6:16. Two wayyiqtol forms (‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬, twice) divide 1 Kgs 6:16 into two unequal parts, 16a and 16b. Verse 16b will be analyzed below; in this section I concentrate on v. 16a. MT reads: ‫ד־ה ִּקירֹות‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ַּק ְר ַקע ַע‬ ַ ‫ּכותי ַה ַּביִת ְּב ַצ ְלעֹו ת ֲא ָרזִ ים ִמ‬ ֵ ‫ת־ע ְׂש ִרים ַא ָּמה ִמּיַ ְר‬ ֶ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬ and he (Solomon) built twenty cubits at the rear of the temple with boards of cedar from the floor to the rafters.254

Scholars have dedicated a lot of space to this verse.255 For the purposes of this work I list a few interpretations pertinent to our theme: (1) The verse means that Solomon built an adytum of twenty cubits at the rear of the temple; (2) Solomon built a wall in order to create a separate space at the rear of the temple; (3) Solomon paneled the rear of the sanctuary with wood.256 According to these interpretations, Solomon created a twenty-cubit-deep space within the temple, at its rear.257 The rear twenty cubits of the sixty-cubit-long temple (MT version) were For the reading “rafters” or “beams” instead of “walls,” see §4.6. Their conclusions can be summarized as follows: the verb ‫“ בנה‬to build” can describe any activity in the construction process, and in the term ‫ת־ע ְׂש ִרים‬ ֶ ‫א‬, ֶ ‪‫ ֶאת־‬is an accusative marker (JM §125h); scholars arguing for the qere/ketiv of ‫ּכותי‬ ֵ ‫ ִמּיַ ְר‬concluded that the word describes the rear and less accessible part of the temple. For a good review of scholarly opinions, see Mulder 1998, 255–257. 256 Keil 1872, 76; Burney 1903, 70; Hentschel 1984, 45; Cogan 2001, 241. 257 F. Vanhemelryck (2011, 71–78) suggested that during Josiah’s reign the temple was enlarged by several cubits in all directions. 254 255

168

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

built with cedar wood. This space of twenty cubits was subsequently interpreted as the debir and later as the Holy of Holies (cf. below). B and Ant. present a different organization of the interior of the temple (3 Kgdms 6:17): Codex Vaticanus And he (Solomon) built twenty cubits from the top of the wall, the side, the one from the floor to the rafters.

καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τοὺς εἴκοσι πήχεις ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τοῦ τοίχου τὸ πλευρὸν τὸ ἓν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐδάφους ἕως τῶν δοκῶν

Antiochian version καὶ ᾠκοδόμησε τοὺς εἴκοσι πήχεις ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τοῦ οἴκου τὸ πλευρὸν τὸ ἓν ἀπὸ ἐδάφους ἕως τῶν δοκῶν

And he (Solomon) built twenty cubits from the top of the temple, the side, the one from the floor to the rafters.

In B and Ant. the active verb ᾠκοδόμησεν “he built” governs three direct objects: (1) τούς εἴκοσι πήχεις; (2) τό πλευρόν; and (3) τό ἓν. The first direct object of the verb ᾠκοδόμησεν indicates that Solomon built twenty cubits ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τοῦ οἴκου/ τοίχου. The phrase ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου is often used in the metaphorical expression “from one end of the earth to the other.”258 However, in 2 Chr 25:12 and Isa 42:11, ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου translates ‫;מרֹאׁש‬ ֵ similarly also in Exod 38:16. These two cases suggest that the twenty cubits were built beyond, or behind, the temple or the rear wall of the temple. This marks the first difference between MT and B/Ant.: whereas MT claimed that the space of twenty cubits was built within the temple, at the rear, B and Ant. assert that it was added to the back of the temple. This reading corresponds to the dimensions of the temple in B/Ant., according to which the temple proper was forty cubits long and another twenty-cubit-long structure was added behind it. The second accusative is τό πλευρόν “side, rib.” In classical as well as koine Greek, the neuter (πλευρόν) and feminine (πλευρά) forms of this word are interchangeable.259 The feminine πλευρά in 1 Kgs 6 // 3 Kgdms 6 translates the terms for the surrounding structure (‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬,‪ ‫;צ ָלע‬‪ ֵ 1 Kgs 6:5, 6, 8) and is used in the plural (πλευραῖς πευκίναις) to render ‫רוֹשׁים‬ ִ ‫“ ַצ ְלעוֹת ְבּ‬the boards of pine” (1 Kgs 6:15). This direct object functions as an appositive to “twenty cubits.” In other words, Solomon built an extension measuring twenty cubits long behind the rear wall of the temple, i.e., a structure similar to the structure surrounding the temple as it is described in 1 Kgs 6:5–10. The third direct object in B/Ant. is τὸ ἓν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐδάφους ἕως τῶν δοκῶν. This direct object in B and Ant., contrary to MT, is another appositive explaining that the structure beyond or behind the temple was built from the bottom to the top of the temple. In other words, this new structure was as high as the temple itself. 258 The expression translates the Hebrew ‫( ִמ ְק ֵצה‬Gen 47:21; Deut 13:8; 28:64; 30:4; Isa 5:26; 13:5; 42:10; 43:6; Jer 12:12; Ps 19:7; Neh 1:9; similarly probably in 1 Sam 3:21). Isa 41:9 has the plural form ‫מ ְקצֹות‬. ִ 259 For the koine Greek, see Josephus, Ant. 3.147, 149.

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple

169

In sum, whereas MT states that a twenty-cubit section was built inside the rear of the temple, entirely of cedar wood, B and Ant. state that a twenty-cubit-long structure behind the temple stood as tall as the temple. B and Ant. do not specify the material used for this new structure (cf. §4.5). In conclusion, 1 Kgs 6:16a and 3 Kgdms 6:17a present two partially different accounts of a phase in the history of the temple building. According to MT, the temple was sixty cubits long and Solomon made an interior space twenty cubits deep at the rear of the temple. He built it with cedar wood from the floor to the ceiling. According to B and Ant., the temple was forty cubits long and Solomon added a twenty-cubit extension to the back of the temple. The structure was similar to the surrounding structure mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:5–10 (= 3 Kgdms 6:10–15) and it was as high as the temple. Such remodeling of temple interiors was not unusual in the Levant. Two examples will illustrate the two different types of interior reconstruction represented in MT and B/Ant. The first example is Building XVI at Tell Tainat. After the conquest of the city by the Assyrians, the temple (Building II) was abandoned and a new temple (Building XVI) was raised northeast of the previous one. This new temple was destroyed in the late eighth or early seventh century BCE. Excavations showed that this new temple was built in two phases. In the first phase the temple layout was established. In the later phase two piers or partition walls were built to separate the main room from the adytum, as is the case in MT.260 The second example comes from Tell Qasile. Temple 319 (Stratum XII) had only one room. Its successor, Temple 200 (Stratum XI), was bigger but still had only one room. However, during the reconstruction of the temple a small square section was added behind the temple, in the manner described in B/Ant. The addition measured about half the width of the temple.261 The transformation of the debir into the Holy of Holies (1 Kgs 6:16b) First Kings 6:16b reads ‫וַ ֶּיִבן לֹו ִמ ַּביִת ִל ְד ִביר ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬.262 On the one hand, like 1 Kgs 7:50 (cf. §4.2.1), this verse also contains a threefold use of the preposition ‫ל‬, with three different syntactical roles. On the other hand, whereas the Greek 260 Harrison 2012b, 132–133. The temple in Pella, dated to the Late Bronze and Iron Age, is another example demonstrating that an adytum could be added to a temple. In phase I the temple was a single room with a direct access oriented east–west. This temple was destroyed at the end of the LB period. In Phase II (Iron Age I) the temple was still oriented east–west, but its size was reduced. In the rear of the temple was built an adytum that was separated from the main hall by two pier walls. In Phase III, the orientation and the dimensions of the temple changed. The temples of Phase I and II were oriented east–west, whereas the temple of Phase III was oriented north–south and had an indirect access. The temple of Phase III was destroyed about 800 BCE (Elkowicz 2012, Tf. 19). 261 Albers 2004b, 93–105, Tf. 38. For a similar change, see Tel Mevorakh Stratum XU and X (Albers 2004b, 34–42, Tf. 10). 262 For possible translations, see below.

170

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

translations of 1 Kgs 7:50 follow MT, in the case of 1 Kgs 6:16b some important Greek manuscripts differ from MT. The MT of 1 Kgs 6:16b has generated different, often quite contradictory interpretations.263 Some earlier commentators suggested interpreting the suffixed preposition ‫ לֹו‬as the dativus commodi, “(Solomon) built for himself,” or as an ethical dative.264 This interpretation was abandoned and replaced by the suggestion that ‫ לֹו‬can mean “for it,” referring to the house, i.e., the temple.265 However, this solution creates more problems than it can resolve. Most recent commentators have opted to interpret ‫ לֹו‬as a preposition followed by an anticipatory pronoun marking a direct object, as in Aramaic and Syriac.266 Accordingly ‫ לֹו‬is not a dative but rather an anticipatory accusative referring to a subsequent noun introduced by the preposition ‫ל‬, i.e., ‫ ִל ְד ִביר‬or ‫לק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬.ְ From the grammatical point of view this is the best explanation of the complicated syntax and I will follow it in this study. Another syntactical problem in this verse is the syntagma ‫מ ַּביִת‬. ִ With this vocalization it functions as an adverb, “inside,” appearing often in the combination ‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ ‫מ ַּביִת‬, ִ “inside and out” (cf. Gen 6:14; Exod 25:11; 1 Kgs 7:9). However, if vocalized as a construct form ‫ ִמ ֵּבית‬and followed by the preposition ‫ל‬, the expression becomes a compound preposition meaning “within” (cf. Exod 26:33; Lev 16:2, 12, 15; 1 Kgs 7:8, 31; 2 Kgs 11:15). In this case the phrase ‫ִמ ֵּבית ִל ְד ִביר‬ would mean “within the debir.” When all of these observations are taken into consideration, the Hebrew consonantal text allows the following translations: 1. Inside he built it, i.e., the debir, which is the Holy of Holies.267 This translation restates what was already said in v. 16a and gives the structure built by Solomon a name, the debir. This interpretation respects the Masoretic vocalization of the text, which is rather late. Finally, according to this interpretation the phrase ‫ְלק ֶֹדׁש‬ ‫ ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬is an explanatory note as in 1 Kgs 7:50 (cf. also 1 Kgs 8:6). In 1 Kgs 7:50, however, this gloss explains the archaic term “the inner house,” whereas in 1 Kgs 6:16b it would be explaining debir, which is hardly a rare word; in addition to Ps 28:2, it appears in Chronicles four times and in 1 Kings eleven times. Would the editors of Kings have deemed it necessary to explain such a term when the Chronicler used it without adding a gloss?

Beside the interpretations mentioned in the main text, which all accept the text of MT, some scholars have proposed interpretations based on emendations or alterations of MT; see Barnes 1908, 49; Šanda 1911, 129; Noth 1968, 99; Würthwein 1977, 66; Sweeney 2007, 105. 264 Burney 1903, 70; Gray 1976, 169. 265 Keil 1872, 75; Thenius 1873, 69. 266 Montgomery 1951, 153–154; Mulder 1998, 256–257; Cogan 2001, 241; Fritz 2003, 67. 267 The preposition ‫ לֹו‬refers to the debir ‫;ל ְד ִביר‬ ִ the term ‫ ִמ ַּביִת‬is an adverb, “inside”; ‫ְלק ֶֹדׁש‬ ‫ ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬is an explanatory note explaining what the word debir means (Landersdorfer 1927, 43; Cogan 2001, 235). 263

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple

171

2. He built it, i.e., the interior, as/into the debir, which is the Holy of Holies.268 This translation assumes that in v. 16a Solomon made a space at the rear of the temple and in v. 16b this space was transformed into the debir. In this translation as in the previous one, the expression ‫ ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬is an explanatory gloss clarifying the term debir. Even though this translation tries to respect the Masoretic vocalization as the preceding translation does, it is the less plausible of the two. The translation presupposes that the term ‫ ִמ ַּביִת‬is a noun: “the interior,” “the inside.” However, nowhere does the syntagma ‫ ִמ ַּביִת‬or its pausal form ‫ ִמ ָּ֫ביִת‬function as a noun.269 In all cases it is an adverb.270 Therefore the translation of ‫ִמ ַּביִת‬ as “the interior” does not correspond to its syntactic role as an adverb. 3. He built it, i.e., the Holy of Holies, within the debir.271 This translation suggests that according to v. 16b the debir, or part of it, was transformed into the Holy of Holies. Furthermore, this translation is supported by the fact that the consonantal text ‫ מבית ל‬always means “within” (for the occurrences, see above). This would be the only case in the Bible with a different vocalization. According to this translation v. 16b would not be a duplicate of v. 16a, but rather its development. This interpretation is also echoed in the Codex Alexandrinus: ἔσωθεν τοῦ δαβείρ “within the debir” and other manuscripts (MNd-gmnp-zS) that attempted to translate MT literally. This indicates that the translators of MT understood the consonantal text ‫ מבית לדביר‬as a prepositional phrase, vocalized ‫מ ֵּבית ִל ְד ִביר‬. ִ Let us draw some conclusions from this investigation. The use of the preposition ‫ ל‬with a pronoun as an anticipatory accusative, as well as the accumulation of occurrences of ‫ל‬, are features of a later stage of the Hebrew language. The term “the Holy of Holies” is also of later date. These linguistic data, as most exegetes concur, indicate that part or all of v. 16b is a later gloss.272 Of the three possible translations of 1 Kgs 6:16b examined above, I suggest that the best one is the third, which is also reflected in some Greek manuscripts. The text of the addition as it was rendered in B and Ant. differs from MT in important ways. Whereas MT repeats the wayyiqtol form ‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬, both B and Ant. have ᾠκοδόμησεν (3 Kgdms 6:17a) and ἐποίησεν (3 Kgdms 6:17b), pointing to 268 The preposition ‫ לֹו‬refers to the noun ‫מ ַּביִת‬: ִ “the inside, the interior”; the expression ‫ִל ְד ִביר‬ is a preposition of result (i.e., the interior was transformed into the debir); ‫ ְלק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬is an explanatory note explaining what the word debir means (Garofalo 1951, 65; Mulder 1998, 256; DeVries 2003, 86, 88). 269 Cf. Lev 14:41; Prov 17:1; Sir 4:15. In the next four cases it is used in the combination ‫ּומחּוץ‬ ִ ‫“ ִמ ַּביִת‬inside and out” (Gen 6:14; Exod 25:11; 37:2; 1 Kgs 7:9). In Isa 23:1 the word has a different meaning. For the pausal form, see 1 Kgs 6:15; 2 Kgs 6:30; Ezek 7:15. 270 HAHw 1:142; HALOT 1:125. 271 The preposition ‫ לֹו‬refers to the Holy of Holies ‫;לק ֶֹדׁש ַה ֳּק ָד ִׁשים‬ ְ the revocalized term ‫ִמ ֵּבית‬ ‫ ִל ְד ִביר‬is the preposition ‫ מבית ל‬plus a noun: “within the debir.” 272 Kittel and Nowack 1900, 50; Burney 1903, 71; Noth 1968, 119; Hentschel 1984, 45; Mulder 1998, 257.

172

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

the verbs ‫ וַ ֶּיִבן‬and ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‬in the Hebrew Vorlage.273 B reads καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐκ τοῦ δαβεὶρ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων, lit. “and he made from the debir in/for the Holy of Holies.” This can be interpreted to mean that Solomon transformed the debir into the Holy of Holies. The Antiochian version reads καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐκ τοῦ δαβεὶρ τὸν τοῖχον εἰς τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων, lit. “and he made the wall from the debir in/for the Holy of Holies.” This translation is also in the Old Latin: “Et fecit ex dabir parietem in Sancta sanctorum” (manuscripts L91–95). The Antiochian version and the Old Latin suggest that Solomon built a wall in the temple, and that by means of this wall he transformed the debir into the Holy of Holies. In sum, based on these analyses it is possible to conclude that 1 Kgs 6:16b is a later addition to the text. The reflex of this addition in Codex Vaticanus states that the debir was at some point transformed into the Holy of Holies. The Antiochian version and the Old Latin specify that this transformation consisted in the construction of a wall in the debir. I have argued that this interpretation also represents a more plausible reading of MT. In brief, the manuscripts attest that the innermost part of the temple – the debir – underwent some degree of reconstruction in a later period. This transformation is reflected in 1 Kgs 8:6, where the debir and the Holy of Holies are the place for the ark. No such reconstruction is mentioned in Chronicles or Ezekiel. The absence of this verse in 2 Chr 3 and Ezekiel suggests that the most plausible date of this verse is the late preexilic period. The transformation of one type of adytum into another can be observed in the Beth-Shean temples of Stratum VII and VI. The temple of Stratum VI follows the layout of the temple of Stratum VII, but its adytum was changed. The new temple followed the layout of the previous temple, but on the western and eastern sides small chambers were created.274 Where was the debir? The shorter version of the description of the layout of the temple in B and Ant. (3 Kgdms 6:16–21) offers a clearer picture of the interior of the temple. It was divided into two parts, the debir (δαβείρ) and the hekal (ναός). According to B and Ant., Solomon enlarged the temple by adding a twenty-cubit extension to the back of the temple. This new structure was a debir and it had the shape of a cube.275 In front of the debir (δαβείρ) was the hekal (ναός), which was forty cubits long. This picture conforms to the well-known tripartite temple plan (debir, hekal,

Burney 1903, 70. According to Thenius (1873, 69) the term ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש‬was original. For a similar case, cf. 1 Kgs 6:4–5. 274 Albers 2004b, 63–75, Tf. 22, 24. 275 Even though the text of B and Ant. is much clearer than MT, the problem of how to coordinate 3 Kgdms 6:17 and 19 remains. According to 3 Kgdms 6:17, the debir was as high as the temple, i.e., twenty-five cubits; according to 3 Kgdms 6:19 it was only twenty cubits tall. 273

4.5 Dimensions of the Temple

173

ulam). Finally, this division of the temple can be correlated with the account of the cherubs (3 Kgdms 6:22–27; cf. §4.8), which places one set of cherubs in the debir (= the inner house). The Masoretic Text, however, contains several additions. The repetition of the words ‫ לפני‬and ‫ ְּד ִביר‬in MT creates a tension in the text. The interior of the temple in MT is organized differently than in B and Ant. According to 1 Kgs 6:16a Solomon built a separate section within the rear part of the temple. In 1 Kgs 6:16b this section is identified with the debir, and it was transformed into the Holy of Holies (cf. above). However, 1 Kgs 6:19 contradicts this idea. The verse reads ‫ימה‬ ָ ִ‫תֹוְך־ה ַּביִת ִמ ְּפנ‬ ַ ‫ּוה ִכין ְד ִביר ְּב‬, ֵ lit. “and he (Solomon) erected a debir in the midst of the temple within.” The active verb ‫ ֵה ִכין‬is not reflected in B and Ant., which link v. 19 to v. 17 and read “17forty cubits was the hekal in front of 19the debir,” but MT presents the erection of the debir as a separate activity in v. 19. In fact the term debir here in MT lacks the definite article, as if it were being mentioned for the first time. According to MT, then, Solomon erected within the temple, namely in its center, a debir. This small shrine within the temple was to house the ark. Moreover, 1 Kgs 6:20 describes further the interior of the temple. Although the words ‫ וְ ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ְּד ִביר‬are omitted in B and Ant. in v. 20, the cube measuring twenty cubits on a side could be identified with “the debir” of v. 19. In the Hebrew text of v. 20, however, debir has the definite article, linking it with the debir in v. 19, and the cube stands “in front of the debir” (1 Kgs 6:20). The syntax of v. 20 allows the following interpretation. The cube is to be identified with the rear part of the temple, and thus the temple had three parts: a rear cube-like section, the debir in the middle of the temple, and a section in front of and around the debir.277 These speculations must be inserted into a larger context. The differences between the longer and the shorter tradition can be interpreted as scribal errors; alternatively, they bear witness to different stages in the development of the temple. I will argue that the addition of the cedar sections in 1 Kgs 6:16, 18 casts a different light on the construction of the walls of the temple (cf. §4.6). Similarly, I argued that the addition of the word ‫ ַה ָּביִת‬in 1 Kgs 6:17, combined with the different vocalization of ‫לפני‬, significantly changes the meaning of that verse (cf. §4.2.2). In light of these analyses, I suggest that MT should not be written off as a text full of scribal errors.278 These differences, I believe, show that MT 276

Scholarly opinions vary about some details, in particular the height of the debir relative to the temple, since the debir was only twenty cubits high and the temple was twenty-five (B and Ant.) or thirty (MT) cubits tall. The missing cubits have been variously explained: the space above the debir was empty; the debir was lower in height than the rest of the temple; or the debir stood on an elevated platform. For a review of the opinions, see Fritz 1977, 13–15. 277 It is also possible to propose a second interpretation. The cube could have been a space at the front of the temple. Hence, the temple would have had three parts: a rear part built of cedar that was twenty cubits deep, the debir located in the middle of the temple, and a cube of twenty cubits situated in front of the debir. 278 In particular the repetition of the words ‫ לפני‬and ‫ּד ִביר‬,ְ and the addition of the active verb ‫ ֵה ִכין‬in 1 Kgs 6:19–20. 276

174

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

is a juxtaposition of different layouts of the temple. In other words, B/Ant. and MT each telescoped into one description different arrangements of the interior of the temple. According to B and Ant., the interior of the temple had two parts: the debir (twenty cubits in the back, identified as a cube of twenty cubits) and the hekal (forty cubits in front of the debir).279 This arrangement of the interior of the temple partially corresponds to 1 Kgs 6:16, and it indicates that the innermost part of the temple was at the very back of the temple. However, MT 1 Kgs 6:19–20, which is not reflected in B or Ant., states that the interior of the temple had three parts: a rear section made of cedar, twenty cubits deep; the debir located in the middle of the temple; and the rest of the temple, consisting of the space before and around the debir. According to this division, the innermost part of the temple housing the ark was in the center of the temple. Excavated temples in the Levant provide illustrations of both layouts. In the temples excavated at Ain Dara and Tell Tainat, the adytum was the room located at the rear part of the temple.280 However, the innermost sanctuary of Temple 131 of Tell Qasile (Stratum X), where the statue was located, was in the main hall, and the rear room of the temple served probably as a storage room.281

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple? The narrative of Solomon’s preparations for the construction of the temple and its execution in 1 Kgs 5‒8 and its counterparts in Chronicles and Ezekiel differ with respect to the materials used for the walls of the temple and its paneling. A generally accepted opinion is that the walls of the temple were built of stone and overlaid with wood and gold on the inside. In this section I investigate manuscripts (as well as the redactional glosses added to the texts) that mention different types of walls: wooden walls, walls built of undressed stone and covered with wood, walls built of dressed stones, and walls overlaid with gold.282 Is it possible to reconcile all these accounts and produce a single description of walls that remained substantially unchanged for four hundred years? I believe that a better solution – one that respects the complexity of the textual evidence and the grammatical problems it poses – is to assume that the walls of the temple were rebuilt more than once.

279 This division of the temple represents the most common interpretation of the temple layout (Möhlenbrink 1932, 30; Jericke 2010, 115–117). 280 For a comparison of these type of temples, see Herr 2000, Abb. 1–2. 281 Albers 2004b, Tf. 42. 282 The biblical accounts do not mention bitumen, bricks, or mortar, which were often used in Mesopotamian buildings (Anastasio 2011, 35–86). For an excellent review of building materials, see Busink 1970, 218–235.

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple?

175

A temple of undressed stone The first type of building material to be mentioned in 1 Kgs 6 is stone for the walls of the temple, in vv. 7 and 18. The syntax of v. 7, which has no parallel in the entire building account (1 Kgs 6‒8), highlights the different character of this verse. The verse is delimited by the repetition of ‫ּב ִה ָּבנֹתֹו‬, ְ a Niphal infinitive construct with a third-person singular suffix, at the beginning and the end: ‫ נִ ְבנָ ה‬ ‫ן־ׁש ֵל ָמה ַמ ָּסע‬ ְ ‫ֶא ֶב‬ ‫ל־ּכ ִלי ַב ְרזֶ ל לֹא־נִ ְׁש ַמע‬ ְ ‫ּומ ָּקבֹות וְ ַהּגַ ְרזֶ ן ָּכ‬ ַ

‫וְ ַה ַּביִת ְּב ִה ָּבנֹתֹו‬ ֹ‫ַּב ַּביִת ְּב ִה ָּבנֹתו‬

Using the rhetorical technique of inclusio, a later redactor framed this digression on temple masonry, the source of the stone used, and the techniques employed. The digression interrupts the account of the construction of the yaṣiaʿ surrounding the temple (cf. §4.3.1). Exegetes almost unanimously agree that the verse is a later addition, a judgment confirmed by its structure.283 The aim of this digression, as we shall see, was to harmonize the Kings account of the materials and techniques the masons used to build the temple with other parts of the Bible. Thus the verse has a double character. On the one hand, it describes the construction of the temple. On the other hand, the verse makes clear that the temple was built in accordance with sacred tradition: the temple was not defiled because the wrong material or the wrong techniques were employed.284 The first part of the digression in v. 7 is germane to this study: ‫וְ ַה ַּביִת ְּב ִה ָּבנֹתֹו‬ ‫ן־ׁש ֵל ָמה ַמ ָּסע נִ ְבנָ ה‬ ְ ‫א ֶב‬, ֶ lit. “and as for the temple, when it was being built, it (the temple) was built with whole stone(s)285 from a quarry.”286 The expression ‫ֶא ֶבן־‬ ‫“ ְׁש ֵל ָמה‬whole stone(s)” is an evident reference to Deut 27:5–6 (cf. Exod 20:25) and Josh 8:31.287 In these verses the term ‫ ְׁש ֵל ָמה‬describes undressed, unworked, or unfinished stone, as opposed to stone dressed with iron tools (cf. below). Accordingly the temple builders used undressed stones brought from a quarry (‫)מ ָּסע‬. ַ It is unclear whether the stones were “rough-hewn” stones cut from the See, for example, Gray 1976, 165; Würthwein 1977, 64. Cogan 2001, 239–240. 285 In Hebrew, the feminine singular ‫“ ֶא ֶבן‬stone” can refer collectively to stones used as building material, hence it may be translated into English as “stones.” 286 Some exegetes harmonize 1 Kgs 5:31 with 6:7 and conclude that the stones were finished in the quarry (Cook 1889, 510; Fritz 2003, 71), and this interpretation is reflected in most modern translations, e.g., “stone dressed at the quarry” (NAB), “stone finished in the quarry” (NRSV), “only finished stones cut at the quarry” (TNK). The problem with these translations is twofold. First, in Hebrew the term ‫“ ֶא ֶבן‬stone” is feminine but the verb ‫“ נִ ְבנָ ה‬it was built” is a masculine form. Therefore the subject of the verb cannot be the stone but must be the temple (masculine in Hebrew). Moreover, these translations are contrary to the meaning of the Hebrew word ‫ ְׁש ֵל ָמה‬and its Greek equivalents. Some exegetes explain the term ‫ ַמ ָּסע‬as an appositive specifying the expression ‫ן־ׁש ֵל ָמה‬ ְ ‫;א ֶב‬ ֶ see, for example, Burney 1903, 65. 287 Buis 1997, 67. 283 284

176

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

bedrock of the quarry or whether they were “natural” or “unhewn” rocks gathered at a place called ‫מ ָּסע‬. ַ 288 However the stones were obtained, the verse states that they were not dressed. Thus 1 Kgs 6:7 is almost unanimously considered an addition to the text whereby the biblical authors described material and techniques used for the construction of the temple. The verse was added before the text was translated into Greek, since it appears in all the Greek manuscripts. By this addition the editors affirmed that the temple walls were built of undressed stone, in accordance with an ancient tradition preserved in Exod 20:25, Deut 27:5, and Josh 8:31. A temple paneled with cedar wood Verse 18 of the longer version of the description of the layout of the temple, preserved in MT and A (1 Kgs 6:15–22), describes the wooden paneling of the temple. The verse reads ‫טּורי ִצ ִּצים ַהּכֹל ֶא ֶרז‬ ֵ ‫ּופ‬ ְ ‫ימה ִמ ְק ַל ַעת ְּפ ָק ִעים‬ ָ ִ‫ל־ה ַּביִת ְּפנ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא ֶרז ֶא‬ ‫אין ֶא ֶבן נִ ְר ָאה‬, ֵ lit. “And cedar (was applied) to the temple on the inside, (in the form of) carved gourds and calyxes. Everything (was) cedar, not a stone was visible.” The interpretation of this verse is clear: the stone walls of the temple were completely covered with cedar paneling upon which were engraved gourds and calyxes.289 Visitors to the temple saw only the paneling with its engravings, not the stone walls behind the woodwork.290 This verse has been preserved with minor variants in AjxAS and αʹοʹσʹθʹ but it was omitted in other manuscripts, in particular in B, Ant., and the Old Latin version. The absence of the verse in important manuscripts, as well as the fact that this verse interrupts the narrative on the debir, brought scholars to the almost unanimous conclusion that this verse is a later addition or a misplaced note on the embellishment of the interior wall.291 Another verse referring to the woodwork inside the temple is 1 Kgs 6:15. The verse uses the verb ‫ צפה‬twice to describe the installation process: ‫ִצ ָּפה ֵעץ ִמ ָּביִת‬ ‫רֹוׁשים‬ ִ ‫ת־ק ְר ַקע ַה ַּביִת ְּב ַצ ְלעֹות ְּב‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ַצף ֶא‬, lit. “he overlaid (it/them) with wood inside and then he overlaid the floor of the temple with boards of cypress.” The adverb ‫“ ִמ ָּביִת‬inside” also occurs in the form ‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ַּב‬in the first part of the verse, ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶאת־‬ ‫יְתה ְּב ַצ ְלעֹות ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ָ ‫קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ִמ ַּב‬, ִ lit. “and he built the walls of the temple inside with planks of cedar.”292 The presence of the two adverbs ‫ ִמ ָּביִת‬and ‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫מ ַּב‬, ִ as well as the Piel of ‫“ צפה‬to overlay,” leads us to interpret the first part of the verse, ‫וַ ֶּיִבן‬ 288 The term ‫ ַמ ָּסע‬can mean rough-hewn stones cut from the quarry (the accusative of origin; Mulder 1998, 243). M. Noth (1968, 98–99) suggested that the term ‫ ַמ ָּסע‬can indicate both the technique used to obtain the stones (“cutting”) as well as the place from where they came (“quarry”). For quarrying techniques see, for example, Lindner 2006. 289 Perhaps reflecting the preexilic style of worship (Provan 1997, 68). 290 Noth 1968, 120; Mulder 1998, 258–260; Fritz 2003, 74; Sweeney 2007, 114. 291 Landersdorfer 1927, 43; Montgomery 1951, 154; Gray 1976, 168; Mulder 1998, 258; Cogan 2001, 242. 292 Other manuscripts that follow MT, such as Adefjmnp-tw-zAS αʹσʹθʹ, also support this reading.

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple?

177

‫ת־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת‬ ִ ‫“ ֶא‬he built the walls of the temple,” not as a reference to Solomon building the actual walls of the temple, but to his lining the temple with wood.293 In other words, 1 Kgs 6:15 in MT and some Greek manuscripts states that Solomon overlaid the walls of the temple with cedar, in agreement with 1 Kgs 6:18. To this list we can also add 1 Kgs 6:10b, which reads ‫ת־ה ַּביִת ַּב ֲע ֵצי‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיֶ ֱאחֹז ֶא‬ ‫א ָרזִ ים‬, ֲ lit. “he seized the temple with timbers of cedar.” The Masoretic vocalization ‫ וַ ּיֶ ֱאחֹז‬understands the verb as a Qal form, with the meaning “to seize, to grasp.” Accordingly most modern translations understand the verb to mean that Solomon stabilized the temple with cedar beams. However, the D form of the Akkadian cognate of this verb, uḫḫuzu, is often used in Neo-Assyrian building inscriptions as a technical term meaning “to attach, to mount, to overlay, to decorate.”294 The verb ‫ אחז‬also occurs, albeit rarely, in the Piel form (Job 26:9; Pual in 2 Chr 9:18).295 Accordingly the verb ‫ אחז‬in 1 Kgs 6:10b could be revocalized as a Piel form, i.e., as the Hebrew equivalent of the Akkadian D stem,296 yielding ‫ת־ה ַּביִת ַּב ֲע ֵצי ֲא ָרזִ ים‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ַא ֵחז ֶא‬, “and he (Solomon) overlaid the house with cedar boards.” The revocalization in light of uḫḫuzu better fits the architectural context and is consistent with the technical vocabulary of Mesopotamia in the first half of the first millennium. Although the technical meaning of the Piel stem of ‫ אחז‬is reflected in the poetry of Job (26:9), it was forgotten in later periods, as the Greek translations demonstrate.297 These three verses show that according to the authors of MT and kindred Greek manuscripts, the interior walls of the temple were overlaid with cedar wood. The authors used two different verbs, ‫ אחז‬and ‫צפה‬. The two verbs may reflect two different techniques of overlaying the interior of the temple with wood. Finally, it is worth noting some of the other references to cedar in 1 Kgs 6. In 1 Kgs 6:16 MT uses the phrase ‫“ ְּב ַצ ְלעֹות ֲא ָרזִ ים‬with cedar boards”; i.e., Solomon built the innermost part of the temple (cf. below) with cedar boards. These words are omitted in B and Ant. Along the same lines, MT adds in 1 Kgs 6:20 that “He (Solomon) overlaid the altar with cedar.” However, B and Ant. read, “He (Solomon) made an altar.” No cedar is mentioned and the verb is different. To this list we can add 1 Kgs 6:9’s statement that Solomon roofed the temple with cedar.298 The book of Ezekiel also refers to the tradition that the temple walls were overlaid with wood; however, cedar is not mentioned in the description of the new 293 Practically all modern translations: NAB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, TNK (English); FBJ (French); IEP, NRV (Italian). All the commentators I consulted followed this reading. Some modern translations suggest “he built the interior walls of the temple with cedar wood”; cf. TOB (French), LND (Italian), LUT (German). 294 CAD A/1, 180a. 295 Perles 1927, 218. 296 Šanda 1911, 148; Hurowitz 2005, 71. 297 Cf. NETS, 3 Kgdms 6:10: καὶ συνέσχεν τὸν ἔνδεσμον ἐν ξύλοις κεδρίνοις “and he enclosed the bonding with cedar boards.” Modern translations follow the Greek translations. 298 This is present in all Greek manuscripts, with minor variants.

178

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

temple (Ezek 40‒48). The temple walls were six cubits thick and consequently they could not have been made of wood (41:5). The interior of Ezekiel’s temple was overlaid with wood decorated with cherubs and palm trees (41:15–26). Examining Chronicles we find a different development of the tradition about the temple walls. First, according to 2 Chr 3‒4 no cedar was used on the interior walls of the temple, even though it is listed among the materials David prepared for the construction of the temple (1 Chr 22:4). Contrary to 1 Kgs 6, the Chronicler specified that the temple was overlaid with cypress wood (2 Chr 3:5–6)299 and decorated with patterns different from those mentioned in 1 Kgs 6. The Chronicler’s verb for the technique of overlaying with wood (‫)ח ָּפה‬ ִ is different from the verbs used in 1 Kgs 6. Another difference between Chronicles and Kings regards the embellishment of the temple with precious stones (cf. 1 Chr 29:2), which are not mentioned in 1 Kgs 6. This analysis shows that the tradition that the temple’s interior walls were overlaid with wood is shared by Kings, Chronicles, and Ezekiel, but the sources differ with regard to the verbs used to describe the work, the type of wood, and the type of decoration (cf. §4.7). Even though the sources agree that the temple was overlaid with wood, they describe three different techniques. Also, whereas cedar is not mentioned in 2 Chr 3‒4 or Ezek 40‒48, cedar wood is a dominant building material in 1 Kgs 6. In short, it seems that the authors of MT intended to create the impression that the whole interior of the temple, with the exception of the cypress flooring (1 Kgs 6:15), was lined with cedar: its innermost part was built of cedar, its interior walls were overlaid with cedar, its roof was made of cedar, and even the altar inside the temple was covered with cedar. Thus MT maintains that the temple walls were built of undressed stones that were covered with cedar. A temple of cedar wood Whereas the authors of MT and the allied witnesses unambiguously lead their readers to conclude that the interior walls of the temple were covered with cedar, the authors of B and Ant. direct their readers towards a different conclusion. First, in 1 Kgs 6:10 the verb ‫ אחז‬is translated with συνέσχεν, lit. “he joined, he put together”; consequently, the Greek translation does not state that the temple was paneled with cedar, as is the case in MT. Moreover, the remark in 1 Kgs 6:18 that cedar covered the stone walls of the temple is missing in B and Ant. Thus we lose another key verse supporting the idea that the interior walls were covered with carved cedar wood. Finally, while the Hebrew version of 1 Kgs 6:15 clearly leads the reader to the conclusion that the walls and the floor of the temple were overlaid with wood, B and Ant. have a different text (cf. §4.5.1).

299

According to 1 Kgs 6:15, the temple was floored with cypress.

179

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple? NRSV He lined the walls of the house on the inside with boards of cedar; from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling, he covered them on the inside with wood; 15a

and he covered the floor of the house with boards of cypress. 15b

MT

B and Ant.

‫ת־קירֹות‬ ִ ‫וַ ֶּיִבן ֶא‬‎ ‫יְתה ְּב ַצ ְלעֹות‬ ָ ‫ימ ַּב‬ ִ ‫ַה ַּב‬ ‫ֲא ָרזִ ים ִמ ַּק ְר ַקע ַה ַּביִת‬ ‫ד־קירֹות ַה ִּס ֻּפן ִצ ָּפה‬ ִ ‫ַע‬ ‫ֵעץ ִמ ָּביִת‬ 15a

‫ת־ק ְר ַקע ַה ַּביִת‬ ַ ‫וַ ַיְצף ֶא‬‎15b ‫רֹוׁשים‬ ִ ‫‏ּב ַצ ְלעֹות ְּב‬ ְ

NETS

16aα

καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τοὺς τοίχους τοῦ οἴκου διὰ ξύλων κεδρίνων ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐδάφους τοῦ οἴκου καὶ ἕως τῶν δοκῶν καὶ ἕως τῶν τοίχων

And he built the walls of the house with cedar boards from the floor of the house and as far as the rafters and to the walls;

16aβ

ἐκοιλοστάθμησεν συνεχόμενοςa ξύλοις ἔσωθεν

16aβ

καὶ περιέσχεν τὸ ἔσω τοῦ οἴκου ἐν πλευραῖς πευκίναις

16b

16b

16aα

he made a coffered ceiling enclosed with boardsb within, and he covered the inside of the house with sides of pine.

Notes a The Antiochian version reads συνεχόμενα. b NETS translates the plural συνεχόμενα, as in the Antiochian version.

A comparison of these two texts reveals some important differences. First, B and Ant. do not have an equivalent of the adverb ‫יְתה‬ ָ ‫“ ִמ ַּב‬inside.”300 However, the adverbial ‫ ִמ ָּביִת‬at the end of 1 Kgs 6:15a is indeed translated: ἔσωθεν (3 Kgdms 6:16b). Thus, B and Ant. omit an important adverb that in MT specified that the cedar walls built by Solomon were not the real walls of the temple but rather the wood paneling that lined the interior walls. Second, MT and B/Ant. divide the text differently (cf. above). As a result, according to 3 Kgdms 6:16a Solomon did not line the walls of the temple with cedar, rather he built the walls of the temple with cedar boards and then he constructed the ceiling. Third, 3 Kgdms 6:16b contradicts its MT equivalent (1 Kgs 6:15b). According to MT, after Solomon lined the interior walls with cedar, he covered the floor with cypress. On the contrary, according to B and Ant., after Solomon built the walls and the ceiling, he covered the interior of the temple with pine. So, the conclusion that the interior of the temple was overlaid with cedar is based on three verses in MT (1 Kgs 6:10c, 15, 18). However, B and Ant. eliminate v. 18, and v. 10c is translated in a different way. These manuscripts also substantially alter v. 15. As a result of these changes, the walls of the temple are not overlaid with cedar but built of cedar and partially covered with pine. Thus B and Ant. present an alternative version of the temple: a temple that had cedar walls. Moreover, two sets of decorations carved in cedar further distinguish the temple in MT from that in B/Ant. The decoration of the interior of the cedar walls is described in 3 Kgdms 6:29 (cherubs and palm trees),301 which is the only orna300 301

Codex Alexandrinus and the other manuscripts that follow MT have ἔσωθεν. MT 1 Kgs 6:29 adds “calyxes” (cf. §4.7).

180

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

mentation of the temple walls mentioned in B and Ant. Contrariwise, the cedar boards overlaying the stone walls in MT were decorated with two motifs, gourds and calyxes (1 Kgs 6:18). As the result of these differences, the decoration of the cedar temple (B/Ant.) featured two motifs (cherubs and palm trees; cf. §4.7) applied on both the interior and exterior of the building’s walls.302 The decoration of the boards lining the interior of the temple built of unhewn stone used two motifs, gourds and calyxes. A different idea of the temple emerges even more clearly from the arrangement of the verses in B and Ant. in contrast to MT. Whereas in MT the term ‫ֶא ֶרז‬ “cedar” is distributed throughout the entire chapter (1 Kgs 6:9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20303), in B and Ant. the references to cedar304 are concentrated in three successive verses. Cedar was used for the construction of the ceiling (3 Kgdms 6:14), the structure surrounding the temple (3 Kgdms 6:15), and the walls of the temple (3 Kgdms 6:16). According to 3 Kgdms 6:14–16, then, the main structure of the temple was built of wood. A reader of B or Ant. could visualize the temple as a wooden building, with a ceiling and walls of cedar; however, its innermost part could have been constructed of other material. Dressed stone In addition to the descriptions of the undressed stone and the different types of wood used in the temple, special attention is given to dressed stone. The technical term for describing dressed stone is ‫גָ זִ ית‬.305 The noun ‫ גָ זִ ית‬is related to the verb ‫“ גזה‬to cut.” The term ‫ גָ זִ ית‬is applied to various types of constructions such as altars (Exod 20:25306), houses (Amos 5:11), tables for burnt offerings (Ezek 40:42), and roadblocks (Lam 3:9). The noun describes both a method for preparing stone (1 Kgs 7:9, 11) and the stones themselves, usually hewn with chisels (1 Kgs 5:31). Another term for describing dressed stone takes into consideration its value: ‫“ ֲא ָבנִ ים יְ ָקרֹות‬precious stones,” “stones of high value.” The same phrase (in the singular) is also used for jewels (2 Sam 12:30; 1 Kgs 10:2). The last term used for dressed stones is ‫“ ֲא ָבנִ ים ּגְ ד ֹלֹות‬large stones.” This term emphasizes that dressed stones were usually large blocks measuring eight or ten cubits long B and Ant. have two datives, τῷ ἐσωτέρῳ καὶ τῷ ἐξωτέρῳ, whereas MT has two different prepositions, ‫מ ִּל ְפנִ ים וְ ַל ִחיצֹון‬. ִ 303 All the versions agree that cedar was also part of the walls of the temple precincts (1 Kgs 6:36). 304 The term “cedar” occurs in two forms: κέδρος (3 Kgdms 6:14) and κέδρινος (3 Kgdms 6:15, 16). 305 It occurs both in the absolute form (Exod 20:25; Isa 9:9; Lam 3:9) and as part of a construct chain: ‫( ַא ְבנֵ י גָ זִ ית‬‭1 Kgs 5:31; Ezek 40:42; 1 Chr 22:2),‭‫( טּו ֵרי ָג ִזית‬1 Kgs 6:36; cf. also 7:12), ‫ּדת ָּג ִזית‬ ֹ ‫( ִמ‬1 Kgs 7:9, 11), and ‫( ָּבֵּתי ָג ִזית‬Amos 5:11). 306 This verse prohibits building an altar with dressed stones. In the context of Deut 27:5 and Josh 8:31, dressed stones are the opposite of unhewn stones. 302

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple?

181

(1 Kgs 7:10). In sum, the dressed stones were large, costly blocks of hewn stone. Evidently dressed stone was not only a more durable material than bricks (Isa 9:9), but it seems that in the late preexilic period it became a more fashionable material, according to denunciations of the prosperous by Isaiah (9:9) and Amos (5:11). In MT and related manuscripts dressed stones are initially mentioned before the building account, in the context of Solomon’s preparations for constructing the foundations of the temple (1 Kgs 5:31). MT excluded this section from the building narrative proper. B and Ant., however, inserted this section into the building account (3 Kgdms 6:1–5). Moreover, B and Ant. emphasized that not only did Solomon give the order to hew stones for the foundation of the temple, Hiram’s and Solomon’s workers indeed used them to lay the foundation of the temple. The term next appears at the end of the building account in 1 Kgs 6:36, which states that the walls of the inner court were made of three rows of dressed stone and one row of cedar beams. Since dressed stone is not mentioned in the central part of the building account, it can be supposed that only the foundations of the temple and the walls of the inner court were built of dressed stone, not the walls of the temple itself. B and Ant., however, explicitly state that the inner court was built of unhewn stone and cedar, not of dressed stone (3 Kgdms 6:34).307 The largest section dedicated to dressed stone is located after the description of the royal edifices (1 Kgs 7:9–12; 3 Kgdms 7:46–49). The building account is organized differently in B and Ant. than in MT. The Greek manuscripts begin by describing the construction of the temple and the casting of the bronze utensils. Only when the temple and its furnishings have been completed do the manuscripts describe the construction of royal edifices. The section on dressed stone (3 Kgdms 7:46–49) closes the account of the construction of the royal edifices. These verses in B and Ant. do not mention the temple, contrary to MT (cf. §4.4.4). Thus the location of the section on dressed stone in B and Ant., as well as the omission of any reference to the temple in these manuscripts, shows that dressed stone was used to build the royal edifices. Moreover, the expression “from the foundation to the coping” (3 Kgdms 7:46 = 1 Kgs 7:9) is an equivalent of the Akkadian expression ú-be-ni iš-tu uš-ši-šú a-di gaba-dib-be-šú ú-šék-lil “he built and completed (it) from its foundations to its crenellations” (RIMA 1 A.0.78.11:52–55). This formula usually summarizes the construction of a building.308 As a result, dressed stone was used not only for the foundations of the temple but also for the whole royal palace. Whereas in B and Ant. the dressed stones are clearly connected with the royal edifices, MT is more ambiguous. The section starts with ‫ל־א ֶּלה‬ ֵ ‫“ ָּכ‬all these” (1 Kgs 7:9). In B and Ant. πάντα ταῦτα “all these” (3 Kgdms 7:46) refers unambigIn Ant., 3 Kgdms 6:35. Cf. the different variants in, e.g., RIMA 1 A.0.77.4:37–39; RIMA 2 A.0.98.3:11–12; RINAP 4 12:17, 54 r.2, 57 vi 2–3, 60:21ʹ, and 77:52. 307 308

182

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

uously to the royal edifices; in MT, however, it is less clear. The building account is ordered differently in MT. After the main section on the construction of the temple (1 Kgs 6:1–38), the narrative turns to the royal edifices (1 Kgs 7:1–8), followed by the section on dressed stone (1 Kgs 7:9–12); only then does the narrative return to the temple furnishings (1 Kgs 7:13–50). Hence, MT’s section on dressed stone can be interpreted as the conclusion of the account of the royal edifices, but it can also be interpreted as the conclusion of the account of both the temple and the royal edifices. Since the following section in MT is dedicated to the temple furnishings, the section on dressed stone can be interpreted in both ways. Moreover, the section on dressed stone in MT, contrary to B and Ant., explicitly refers to the temple (1 Kgs 7:12b). Indeed, 1 Kgs 7:12 describes the construction of the large court using the same words as 1 Kgs 6:37, which describes the inner court of the temple: “three courses of dressed stone and a course of cedar beams.” This repetition allows us to interpret the section on dressed stone as the conclusion of both the temple and palace building accounts. According to this verse, at least one part of the temple building – the ulam – was built with dressed stone. Finally, the word ‫ ַמ ַּסד‬resumes ‫ ְליַ ֵּסד ַה ָּביִת‬from 1 Kgs 5:31. Hence the expression “from the foundation to the coping” (1 Kgs 7:9) can refer to both the palace and the temple. To sum up, according to all manuscripts dressed stone was used for the royal edifices. However, whereas in B and Ant. dressed stone was used exclusively for the foundations of the temple, MT is more ambiguous. According to MT (1 Kgs 5:31), Solomon ordered dressed stones for the foundations of the temple, but MT does not state that he actually used them for the foundations. Instead, MT mentions that he used them in the construction of the inner and outer courts of the temple as well as the ulam. This ambiguity is further underlined by the location of the section on dressed stone. Since the section on dressed stone in MT functions as the conclusion of the narrative on the building of the temple-palace complex, the expression ‫ל־א ֶּלה‬ ֵ ‫“ ָּכ‬all these” (1 Kgs 7:9) can refer to both the royal palace and the temple. If this is true, then the expression “from the foundation to the coping” suggests that some parts of the temple were built with dressed stone. The uncertainty about the role of dressed stone is even more pronounced in Chronicles. Second Chronicles 3 does not mention the material used for the construction of the walls, concentrating instead on the decoration of the temple. Reading Chronicles as one literary complex, we can conclude that according to 1 Chr 22:1–5 David prepared dressed stones without number as the building material that Solomon should use to construct the temple. Since Chronicles does not mentioned undressed stone (cf. above), then the only stones used for the temple construction were those prepared by David. In sum, Chronicles indirectly suggests that the temple walls were built of dressed stone.

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple?

183

Conclusion The comparison of manuscript witnesses and versions shows that the reports on the materials used in the temple walls cannot be harmonized in one coherent system without changing the text. Taking into account the variety of readings in the extant texts, I have suggested that the temple had different walls at different periods, and that the various walls are still reflected in the textual witnesses. Wooden walls: The earliest walls of the temple were made of cedar. The texts affirming this belong to the oldest literary stratum, which is preserved in B and Ant. (3 Kgdms 6:16a). According to these manuscripts the walls and the ceiling of the temple were made of cedar. In other words, the temple was not overlaid with cedar but built of cedar. A wooden temple should not be dismissed as a structure of minor value and little beauty, as exemplars of wooden temples in northern India, Japan, eastern Slovakia, and other areas demonstrate. Indeed, wood can convey some theological concepts that stone cannot express.309 An interesting point of reference is provided by the development of Greek temples. In earlier Greek temples stone, where present, was roughly shaped and largely confined to thresholds, foundations, and bases for columns and cult statues. All features above the columns and walls were of timber, with occasional terracotta revetments and tiles; these wooden and terracotta elements were brightly decorated with stylized floral motifs and simple figural scenes, similar to those found in contemporary vase painting. By the end of the sixth century BC all important temples were built of limestone, while in the fifth century BC – and particularly at wealthier cities such Athens – marble was used.310 Unhewn/rough-hewn stone walls overlaid with wood: The next literary stratum describes walls of undressed stone whose interiors were overlaid with cedar. This stratum has been preserved in MT and some Greek manuscripts. According to this stratum the walls themselves were made of undressed stone in accordance with ancient traditions.311 However, the interior of the temple was covered with cedar so the stone could not be seen. A temple built of unhewn stone would not have been exceptional in the ancient Near East. Walls built of unhewn or rough-hewn stones have been unearthed at almost all archaeological sites, and unworked stones were the most common construction material in all periods.312 In the earliest literary stratum the temple was built of cedar; in the second stratum its interior was completely overlaid with cedar. In both strata the temple complies with Nathan’s prophecy, according to which the temple would be a Murphy 2013. Wightman 2006, 436. 311 E. Lipiński (2010, 259) suggested that the temple walls were rebuilt in the eighth century BCE at the command of Ahaz. He accordingly reinterpreted 1 Kgs 6:7 thus: “there was not heard any hammer or adze, nor any iron tool in the temple when it was being (re)built.” 312 For a typology of walls from rubble masonry to ashlar, with examples, see Anastasio 2011, 67–74. 309 310

184

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

“house of cedar” (2 Sam 7:7). Such a concept probably reflects an ancient Levantine tradition. I. Kottsieper’s study of Papyrus Amherst 63 18,1–4a and some biblical texts showed that wood, in particular cedar, had a special place in cult and could even be considered a symbol of divinity.313 Along the same line, the Baal cycle mentions two types of temples, those built of cedar and those built of brick.314 The Chronicler also referred to this ancient tradition (1 Chr 17:6), but in his building account cedar plays no role. Both Chronicles and Ezekiel maintain that the temple was overlaid with wood; however, the type of wood and the type of decoration differ from those mentioned in Kings. These differences suggest that Chronicles and Ezekiel speak about different techniques of overlaying or paneling. Why cedar? Cedar (Cedrus libani) is a wood of high quality.315 It was frequently used for the construction of temples, palaces, and boats because of its impermeability to water and resistance to decay. Remains of Egyptian sarcophagi show that cedar was desired in preparation for the afterlife.316 In addition, cedar wood had a pleasant scent; as Sennacherib’s scribes wrote, “I roofed them (the palatial halls) with beams of cedar (and) cypress, whose scent is sweet, product(s) of Mount Amanus and Mount Sirara, the holy mountains.”317 Its desirability, however, led to deforestation, and only a few remnants of the ancient cedar forests have been preserved.318 Archaeological excavations have unearthed plentiful remains of cedar wood in Israel, starting with the Middle Bronze Age. In the Iron Age numerous sites contain pieces of cedar, particularly in the south.319 For our purposes the most important is the Lachish temple from the Late Bronze Age. It illustrates that cedar was used not only in construction but also for overlaying buildings. In the temple from Lachish, out of 262 wood samples 114 were cedar. The roof of the temple was spanned by long cedar beams, some of which were found in situ where they had been carbonized during the conflagration. A cedar plank about 40 cm wide most likely formed the threshold of the temple, and the doors were overlaid with cedar as well.320 In the Bible, 2 Kgs 12:13 and 22:6 (cf. 2 Chr 34:11) suggest that the builders, beside the unhewn or rough-hewn stones, also used “cut stones” ‫א ְבנֵ י ַמ ְח ֵצב‬. ַ Kottsieper 2002, 170–187. CAT 1.4 (Tablet IV), col. V 10–11; Parker and Smith 1997, 129–130. 315 Liphshitz and Biger 1991, 168. 316 Chaney and Basbous 1978, 169–170. 317 RINAP 3/1 17 vi 23–25. 318 Beals 1965; Liphshitz and Biger 1992. 319 Liphshitz and Biger 1991, 175. Even though this information is more than twenty years old, it illustrates both the importance and the distribution of cedar. From the Iron Age period there are 4 remains from the coastal plain (3 sites), 30 from the Shephelah (1 site), 1 from Judah (1 site), and 39 from the Negev (5 sites). Altogether there were 74 remains from 10 sites, none of which were located in the north. 320 Ussishkin 1983, 107–108, 1978, 13; Liphshitz and Biger 1991, 169. 313 314

4.6 Cedar Temple or Stone Temple?

185

Joash and Josiah during their reconstructions of the temple ordered the procurement of “cut stones” for repairing breaches in the temple. These passages suggest that three types of stone were used in the construction of the temple: unhewn/ rough-hewn stone, “cut stone,” and dressed stone. Ashlar foundations/walls: The third type of material used in the temple is dressed stone. All manuscripts agree that it was intended for use in the foundations of the temple and the construction of the royal edifices. However, MT and Chronicles lead us to the conclusion that some other parts of the temple were rebuilt with dressed stone at a certain point as well. The dressed stones can be identified as ashlars, in the sense of blocks of hewn stone used for building purposes as well as stones produced by a specific masonry technique. In Israel and neighboring countries ashlar served various functions.321 The construction of supporting structures was one of the most widespread uses of ashlar masonry, which appears in building foundations as well as elevated platforms for temples, palaces, and moles.322 Moreover, ashlars were used as piers to support a horizontal beam or an architrave. Functioning like modern iron-concrete constructions, the piers provided the solid framework that supported the rest of the building. This technique was an advance in building technology. It was practiced from the Iron Age II period through the Persian period in the Levant and can even be found at Western Mediterranean sites such as Carthage, Motya in Sicily, and Nora in Sardinia.323 An innovation in the use of ashlar was its use to construct entire walls. This so-called “pure” ashlar technique had several variants, depending on the orientation of headers and stretchers. Pure ashlar became an important type of masonry in Israel and Judah until the Greek period.324 In addition to the use of ashlar masonry at various sites in ancient Israel, the large platform at Tell Dan provides an interesting example of its use in the 321 The “poorest” type of ashlar – ashlar piers inserted in walls filled with field stone – appeared for the first time at Megiddo in the tenth–ninth century BCE, in contrast with later Phoenician examples coming from Akhzib, Sarepta, and Acco. The chronological priority of Palestinian ashlar led Y. Shiloh (1979, 66) to the conclusion “that ashlar masonry as we know it in the IA [Iron Age] in Judah and Israel, was a technique quite specific to this region, differing from all the other building techniques applied by the neighboring cultures.” According to this view, Phoenicians did not introduce Israelite masons to a new building technique; rather, it was the Phoenicians who were introduced to ashlar technology by Israelite masons. However, very few scholars agree with Shiloh’s conclusions. 322 Ussishkin 1973, 95–97; Laperrousaz 1982, 224–226; Stern 1990, 104; Haggi and Artzy 2007, 77; Keller and Tuttle 2010, 539–541. 323 They were probably an improvement of the monolithic piers that originated in the Fourth Dynasty in Egypt and then spread throughout the Levant (van Beek and van Beek 1981). For the partial incorporation of ashlar into walls, see Lamon, Shipton, and Loud 1939, figs. 12, 15, 21. 324 The header-stretcher wall of tenth-century BCE Megiddo is the earliest known example of a pure ashlar pattern. A more elaborated headers-against-a-stretcher form emerged just a century later in Samaria, and its subtype with fixed sides appeared only in the Hellenistic period.

186

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

ancient reconstruction of a cultic site. The tenth-century BCE cultic place was destroyed in a conflagration and rebuilt with ashlars.325 Finally, it should be noted that in addition to its structural function, ashlar masonry played an aesthetic role as well. The dressed stones themselves were employed as decorative elements until modern times, and ashlar blocks could also have been sculpted with reliefs.326 In Jerusalem, K. Kenyon, Y. Shiloh, and E. Mazar unearthed ashlar masonry in the so-called Stepped Building and its vicinity. These finds show that ashlar masonry was used in Jerusalem in the early preexilic period.327 Thus archaeological data support the conclusion that ashlars were used in the foundations/platform of the temple building, yet they do not exclude the possibility that part of the temple building was reinforced with ashlars at a later period.

4.7 Decoration of the Temple Temple decoration represents an element of architecture more susceptible to change than the arrangement of walls and rooms. Even highly conservative religions that opposed changes in the structure of their temples still allowed changes in their ornamentation.328 Given the relationship between theological developments and the structure of the Jerusalem temple already described in this study, it is difficult to imagine that the décor of the temple would have remained untouched for several centuries. Mesopotamian royal annals provide numerous examples of kings boasting that they will make the temple “shine like the daylight”329 by embellishing shrines with precious metals, particularly gold and silver. Similarly, excavations confirm that the decoration of ancient temples often underwent a series of changes.330 The preceding chapter’s analysis of the biblical texts has shown that the temple was several times despoiled and looted, and that these depradations had their greatest affect on the furnishing and decoration of the temple (cf. §3.4). Finally, 2 Kgs 18:16 confirms that not only Solomon but also his successors decorated the temple. Keeping in mind these premises, let us return to the building narrative. It describes two aspects of temple decor: reliefs engraved in wood and the overlaying of wooden surfaces with gold.331

Biran 1994, 165–191. See, for example, Lawler 2009, 21–26. 327 The dating of this building is still an open question. For a recent reevaluation of the archaeological data, see Faust 2010. 328 Perry 2012, 176–187. 329 See, for example, RINAP 4 1 v 33; RIMA 3 A.0.102.41:3. For the relationship of the decorations in 1 Kgs 6–8 to Mesopotamian and Egyptian motifs, see Strange 1985, 35–38. 330 Kohlmeyer 2012, 65–69. 331 For a partial reconstruction of the decoration of the temple, see Vincent and Steve 1956, 400–403. The symbolism of the motifs was studied in Zwickel 2002. 325 326

4.7 Decoration of the Temple

187

Engraved decorations In 1 Kgs 6, engraved decorations are described by a variety of terms: ‫( ִמ ְק ַל ַעת‬v. 18), ‫ּתּוחי ִמ ְק ְלעֹות‬ ֵ ‫( ָק ַלע ִּפ‬v. 29), ‫יהם ִמ ְק ְלעֹות‬ ֶ ‫( וְ ָק ַלע ֲע ֵל‬v. 32), and ‫ ָק ַלע‬and ‫( ַה ְּמ ֻח ֶּקה‬v. 35). It is impossible to determine from the preserved manuscripts whether the text is distinguishing between different techniques or simply using synonyms. Similarly, it is difficult to determine whether all the figures were engraved in wood.332 The extant manuscripts do allow us to distinguish more clearly between the various patterns of engraved figures. Four decorative motifs appear on the walls and doors of the temple: ‫רּובים‬ ִ ‫“ ְּכ‬cherubs,” ‫מר ֹת‬ ֹ ‫“ ִתּ‬palm trees,” ‫טּורי ִצ ִּצים‬ ֵ ‫“ ְפּ‬calyxes,” and ‫“ ְּפ ָק ִעים‬gourds.”333 Walls of the “inner house”: gourds and calyxes (v. 18) ‫טּורי ִצ ִּצים ַהּכֹל ֶא ֶרז ֵאין ֶא ֶבן נִ ְר ָאה‬ ֵ ‫ּופ‬ ְ ‫ימה ִמ ְק ַל ַעת ְּפ ָק ִעים‬ ָ ִ‫ל־ה ַּביִת ְּפנ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא ֶרז ֶא‬ Omitted in all Greek manuscripts but j aʹoʹqʹsʹmʹ. Walls of the “house”: cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes (v. 29) ‫טּורי ִצ ִּצים ִמ ִּל ְפנִ ים וְ ַל ִחיצֹון‬ ֵ ‫ּופ‬ ְ ‫מר ֹת‬ ֹ ‫רּובים וְ ִת‬ ִ ‫ּתּוחי ִמ ְק ְלעֹות ְּכ‬ ֵ ‫ל־קירֹות ַה ַּביִת ֵמ ַסב ָק ַלע ִּפ‬ ִ ‫וְ ֵאת ָּכ‬ καὶ πάντας τοὺς τοίχους τοῦ οἴκου κύκλῳ ἐγκολαπτὰ ἔγραψεν γραφίδι χερουβιν καὶ φοίνικες τῷ ἐσωτέρῳ καὶ τῷ ἐξωτέρῳ The equivalent of ‫טּורי ִצ ִּצים‬ ֵ ‫ּופ‬ ְ is omitted in all Greek manuscripts; some (AAS) add περιγλυφα “engraving” and manuscript x reads πτεριγλυφα. Doors: cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes (v. 32a) ‫טּורי ִצ ִּצים‬ ֵ ‫ּופ‬ ְ ‫רּובים וְ ִתמֹרֹות‬ ִ ‫יהם ִמ ְק ְלעֹות ְּכ‬ ֶ ‫י־ׁש ֶמן וְ ָק ַלע ֲע ֵל‬ ֶ ‫ּוׁש ֵּתי ַּד ְלתֹות ֲע ֵצ‬ ְ καὶ δύο θύρας ξύλων πευκίνων καὶ ἐγκολαπτὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν χερουβιν καὶ φοίνικας καὶ πέταλα διαπεπετασμένα καὶ περιέσχεν χρυσίῳ καὶ κατέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὰ χερουβιν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοίνικας τὸ χρυσίον Present in AMNASL bdg-jno-yc2e2; the description of the decoration is omitted in Befmza2 Doors: cherubs and palm trees (v. 32b) ‫ת־הּזָ ָהב‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ִּתמֹרֹות ֶא‬ ַ ‫רּובים וְ ַע‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיָ ֶרד ַע‬ καὶ κατέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὰ χερουβιν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοίνικας τὸ χρυσίον B omits this part. Location unspecified: cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes (v. 35) ‫ל־ה ְּמ ֻח ֶּקה‬ ַ ‫ּופ ֻט ֵרי ִצ ִּצים וְ ִצ ָּפה זָ ָהב ְמיֻ ָּׁשר ַע‬ ְ ‫רּובים וְ ִתמֹרֹות‬ ִ ‫וְ ָק ַלע ְּכ‬ ἐγκεκολαμμένα χερουβιν καὶ φοίνικες καὶ διαπεπετασμένα πέταλα καὶ περιεχόμενα χρυσίῳ καταγομένῳ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκτύπωσιν Present with minor differences in all Greek manuscripts. Görg 1980, 24–25. For the symbolic meaning of the motifs and ancient Near Eastern parallels, see Zwickel 1999, 85–92; Bloch-Smith 2002, 85–88; and Sonnet 2008. 332 333

188

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

These motifs occur in three patterns or styles. The first style combines two decorative motifs – gourds334 and calyxes – and occurs only in MT 1 Kgs 6:18, a verse that is omitted in most Greek manuscripts. The gourd-and-calyx style was carved on the interior cedar panels of the temple. The note in 6:18b specifies that cedar wood covered the stone walls (cf. §4.6). Thus the first style of decoration is used only on the cedar wood paneling and contains two motifs, gourds and calyxes; the cherub and palm tree motifs are absent. The second style of temple decoration combines cherubs and palm trees and was used to adorn the wooden doors of the temple, according to 1 Kgs 6:32. The first part of the verse (v. 32a) names three decorative elements – cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes – and implies that they were all overlaid with gold. However, the second part of the verse (v. 32b) describes the gilding of the cherubs and palm trees alone; the calyxes are not included. If the verse is read as a unit, Solomon first engraved cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes upon the gates, and then overlaid the doors with gold (‫)וְ ִצ ָּפה זָ ָהב‬. Then he spread gold (‫ת־הּזָ ָהב … וַ ּיָ ֶרד‬ ַ ‫)א‬ ֶ over just the cherubs and the palm trees. A critical reader will question several details in the verse: Why does the text mention twice that Solomon overlaid the doors with gold? Why does the author use two different verbs to describe the process? Why are the calyxes not mentioned in the second part of the verse? These questions are often overlooked in attempts to harmonize the various remarks on the decoration of the temple. However, these inconcinnities in the text, with minor variations, are present in all manuscripts. The two different methods of overlaying with gold, as well as the different lists of decorative motifs, suggest that v. 32b refers to a two-motif style, i.e., cherubs and palm trees without calyxes, in contrast to the three-motif style mentioned in v. 32a. The existence of a two-motif style is supported also by most Greek manuscripts of 1 Kgs 6:29. The Hebrew text of v. 29 states that Solomon used cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes to decorate the temple, whereas most Greek manuscripts omit the calyxes. The Hebrew text in this case harmonizes the decoration in accordance with vv. 32a and 35, where all three elements occur. The Greek versions of 1 Kgs 6:29 thus represent the lectio difficilior. According to this tradition the cherub-and-palmtree style was carved on both the outside and the inside of the walls of the temple. Naturally the claim that the temple walls were decorated on both sides causes a problem. Because the decoration on the exterior would have been obscured by the structure surrounding the temple, P. Buis suggests that the decoration “on the inside and on the outside” should be understood as the decoration of the debir.335 Even though this interpretation is logical, no manuscript supports it. Therefore I suggest retaining the original version of the text as preserved in most Greek manuscripts and interpreting it as an indication that at some point the interior and exterior walls of the temple alike were decorated with cherubs and palm trees. Masculine in 1 Kgs 6:18; the feminine form is used in 2 Kgs 4:39 of actual gourds (Cogan 2001, 242). 335 Buis 1997, 71. 334

4.7 Decoration of the Temple

189

We know very little about the shape of the cherubs at this stage, and as M. Noth pointed out, we should not be too quick to identify the cherubs in 1 Kgs 6:23–28 with those carved on the walls.336 In sum, the two-motif style did not include calyxes, and it was engraved on the doors of the temple and on the exterior and interior sides of the temple walls. Finally, the third style of decoration combines three motifs – cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes – and appears on the temple gates according to 1 Kgs 6:32a. It also occurs in v. 35. In most translations v. 35 is linked with vv. 31–34 by adding “on them,” “on it.” According to this interpretation v. 35 would continue the description of the decoration of the temple gates. However, the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not require this interpretation, nor do they add “on them” or a similar gloss. The verse as it stands in the manuscripts is syntactically isolated, and it can easily be construed as a statement about the walls of the temple.337 Overlaying with gold In addition to the figures engraved on the temple walls and doors, the temple was embellished with gold applied to its walls, doors, and floors. This type of decoration does not incorporate any new decorative motifs but rather represents a different technique. The notes on the gilding of the temple in 1 Kgs 6 contain several problems. First, it is difficult to specify just what was overlaid with gold. Verses 20, 21b, and 22a could refer to the debir, v. 21a to the inner house, v(v). 22a (and 35) to the whole temple, and v. 30 to the floor of the outer and inner area of the temple. Some other questions can also be posed: Do vv. 20, 21b, and 22a really refer to overlaying the debir with gold? If yes, then why would the author have needed to say this three times? Moreover, why would the costly wooden floor described in v. 15 have been overlaid with gold (v. 30)? The second problem regards the material involved. First Kings 6 employs two types of gold for ornamentation: ‫( זָ ָהב ָסגּור‬vv. 20, 21a) and ‫( זָ ָהב‬vv. 21b, 22, 28, 30, 32, 35). Do they refer to the same kind of gold or to two different kinds of metal, or perhaps to two different techniques of application? The most obvious signs of redaction, however, are found in the description of the doors. First, there is a contradiction between 1 Kgs 6:32 and 7:50. In 6:32 the doors of the temple are overlaid with gold, whereas 7:50 states that the doors themselves were made of gold. Second, two different verbs are used to describe the gilding of the doors. The verb ‫ צפה‬is generally used in 1 Kgs 6 to describe plating something with gold (vv. 21, 22, 28, 30, 32, 35). In v. 32 however, the Noth 1968, 123. The use of multiple decorative patterns and techniques in the temple of Jerusalem is not a surprise. Several studies on ancient Near Eastern art document the variety of techniques known in the first millennium; see, for example, Winter 1976, 1981; and Feldman, Winter, and Cheng 2007. 336 337

190

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

biblical author first used the verb ‫ צפה‬and then the expression ‫וַ ּיָ ֶרד‬. The former is used to describe the gilding of a three-motif decoration; the latter describes the gilding of a two-motif decoration. Are these expressions synonymous, or do they refer to different techniques? Finally, 2 Kgs 18:16 allows us to advance a step further in the reconstruction of the architectural phases of the temple (cf. §3.5.3.1). According to this verse it was Hezekiah who overlaid the doorposts and doors of the hekal with gold. Who, then, overlaid the doors with gold: Solomon, Hezekiah, or both? These problems lead most exegetes to conclude that the notes on the gilding of the temple and its parts are subsequent additions to the building narrative.338 They reflect the later glory of the temple but ascribe the work to Solomon. In line with the biblical claim that Solomon was the richest and wisest king of Israel, these additions assert that he caused the most glorious temple of Israel to shine with gold.339 This position is well summed up by M. J. Mulder, who concludes that in v. 35 “we are here clearly dealing with exaggeration, which in a later time was designed to make Solomon’s temple appear even more splendid than it must have been in reality before.”340 A similar conclusion, based on a study of the ideology of the temple, was reached by C. M. McCormick, who stated that the gold in the temple is above all a verbal icon presenting Solomon’s temple as the temple without rival.341 Sifting through the biblical texts one notices differences in the terminology of gilding. The most general term describing the process of overlaying with gold is the verb ‫צפה‬. It does not refer exclusively to plating with precious metals; it is also used to describe the paneling of the temple’s walls with wood (1 Kgs 6:15, 20c). This term is used of overlaying other objects as well, such as altars (v. 22) or cherubs (v. 28). It governs two objects, the second being an accusative of material (BHS §11.2.5): ‫( זָ ָהב‬vv. 21b, 22, 28, 30, 32, 35) and ‫( זָ ָהב ָסגּור‬vv. 20, 21a). The first term, ‫זָ ָהב‬, means gold in general, and it could designate any type of surface treatment, such as gilding with liquid gold, or overlaying with gold leaf or heavy gold plating.342 The second object, ‫זָ ָהב ָסגּור‬, is translated as “refined gold,” “gold leaf,” “pure gold,” “solid gold,” and so on, on the basis of its Akkadian cognate sekēru.343 An important contribution to understanding this term was made by M. C. A. Korpel.344 Burney 1903, 72–73; Fritz 2003, 73. For a list of arguments and opinions, see Würthwein 1977, 69–70. 340 Mulder 1998, 273. 341 McCormick 2002, 120. 342 In this survey of the terminology of gilding, the phrase ‫ל־ה ְּמ ֻח ֶּקה‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִצ ָּפה זָ ָהב ְמיֻ ָּׁשר ַע‬in 1 Kgs 6:35b should not be overlooked. The phrase means that the carved wood was overlaid with gold in such a way that the entire surface was covered with an equally thick layer of gold; it could also name a special technique for applying gold to a wooden surface. 343 CAD S, 213–214. 344 Korpel 1991, 220–222. 338 339

4.7 Decoration of the Temple

191

Studying 1 Kgs 6:21b he convincingly argued that the difficult term ‫ְּב ַרּתיּקֹות‬ refers to the soldering of precious metals. Thus v. 21b would be a gloss explaining the expression ‫זָ ָהב ָסגּור‬. Solomon overlaid the house with ‫“ זָ ָהב ָסגּור‬closed gold,” i.e., he spread (lit. “caused to pass”) gold over the surface by means of ‫“ ְּב ַרּתיּקֹות‬solder-seams.” According to Korpel, both ‫ ְּב ַרּתיּקֹות‬and ‫ זָ ָהב ָסגּור‬refer to a technique of overlaying a surface with gold by means of soldering together pieces of metal. Such a technique required highly specialized craftsmen, probably mentioned in 2 Kgs 24:14. The third term for overlaying with gold is ‫ת־הּזָ ָהב‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ִּתמֹרֹות ֶא‬ ַ ‫רּובים וְ ַע‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיָ ֶרד ַע‬, lit. “he hammered the gold upon cherubs and palm trees” (1 Kgs 6:32b). It refers to the technique whereby gold was applied to the cherubs and palm trees engraved on the temple doors. The verb is generally derived from the root ‫רדד‬, and in light of Isa 41:2; 45:1 and Ps 144:2 it is explained as “to beat out, to hammer out.”345 M. J. Mulder thinks that from a technical point of view there must have been a difference between the overlaying techniques described by the two verbs. The terms used in 1 Kgs 6:32b would have referred to an artistic technique for inlaying surfaces with gold leaf.346 This expression, which only occurs in connection with the two-motif style, would have described hammering gold leaf onto a wooden surface, similar to the bronze decoration on the Balawat gates. Phases of the temple decoration From the preceding discussion of passages related to ornamental engraving and overlaying, it can be concluded that the various descriptions of decorative motifs in the temple fall far short of a coherent account of a single decorative style consistently applied to the whole temple. The solutions to this problem can be divided into two groups. The first group tries to harmonize the differences. Thus the difference between the styles of decoration described in vv. 18 and 29 is generally explained by positing that v. 18 describes the decoration of the main hall, whereas v. 29 describes the decoration of the shrine, which was decorated more elaborately than the side walls of the main hall.347 The second group of solutions attributes the differences in the text to different redactors.348 Our analysis of the engraved decorations supports the latter position. It has shown that the temple account contains three combinations of decorative motifs. The first combination featured gourds and calyxes and was engraved on the cedar panels inside the temple. The second type also had two decorative motifs, cherubs and palm trees. This style was engraved on the doors and on the exterior and interior sides of the temple walls. The third style of engraved decoration combined three motifs: Cogan 2001, 246. Mulder 1998, 276. 347 Cogan 2001, 245. 348 For example, the primary verses in 1 Kgs 6 are 5, 16a, 17, 20, and 22, and the secondary are 18, 19, 16b, and 21 (in that order); see Gray 1970, 168; Zwickel 1999, 72–74. 345 346

192

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes. It was used on the doors and on the temple walls. It is hard to imagine that all three styles of decoration were present on the same walls at the same time. It is therefore more logical to conclude that the decoration of the temple was renewed over time. Accordingly, the glosses added to the text partially reflect changes in style over the years. Similarly, the vocabulary used to describe the overlaying of the temple with gold distinguishes at least two different techniques.349 The first involved soldering pieces of metal together while the second was based on hammering.350 The notes on the application of gold are generally later additions, and by comparing various references it is possible to see that the overlaying of the temple doors, at least, was performed in two stages (1 Kgs 6:32a and 32b). Second Kings 18:16 dates the overlaying of the temple gates to Hezekiah’s reign. This would mean that the decoration of the temple gates was redone three centuries after Solomon’s death. In conclusion, I propose steering a course between two extremes. The first extreme is to attribute all the notes describing the temple decoration to the time of Solomon, or in other words to harmonize the descriptions at any cost. Rather, I suggest assuming that the temple décor was subject to changes over time. These changes pertained to the engraved figures and the techniques used to carve them and to overlay them with gold. It was the responsibility of Judean kings to take care of the temple, to keep it as beautiful as possible, and to introduce only those decorative motifs that were appropriate to temple theology. This is illustrated by the note in 2 Kgs 18:16 that the temple decoration was altered or renewed by the righteous king Hezekiah. The second extreme to be avoided is to claim that each decorative motif discussed above represented a new phase of temple decoration. 349 In Akkadian too there are different terms for covering surfaces with another material; one is general, the other more specific. (1) The adjective uḫḫuzu “overlaid” refers to a surface of almost any kind that has been covered with another material, such as precious metals, precious stones, or ivory. The term uḫḫuzu, derived from the verb aḫāzu, describes the overlaying in rather general terms: “to fix, to attach to.” An example using this terminology is SAA X 354:5–8, “We are giving silver to the masters who came with me, and they are overlaying the sanctuaries [of] Ezida as the king, my lord, commanded” (for similar examples see also SAA I 158:4; X 349:10–119). (2) The second, more specific expression refers to the application of metal leaves to a surface. An example of this type of decoration is mentioned in a letter of Tab-shar-Ashur to Sargon II (SAA I 66). Tab-shar-Ashur reports that an artisan skilled in this method is about to finish his work: “I asked the son of B[el- …] about the work on the temple doors: ‘When are you going to finish your work?’ He informed me as follows: ‘The doors of the temples of Sin, Šamaš and Nikkal to be coated with silver sheets have been made but the wooden saramu’s are not ready; I shall finish them by the 1st of Tishri (VII).’ ” Regarding the doors to be coated with bronze sheets, the artisan said, “Doors of five doorways are finished” (SAA I 66:18–r.15). The Akkadian expression ša le-ʾa-a-ni ša KUG.UD.MEŠ ina UGU-ḫi e-lu-u-ni can be translated “(the doors …) on the top of which the sheets of silver are to be set,” which would indicate that a sheet (lē’u) of precious metal, most often gold, silver, or bronze, was to be applied to a wooden door. 350 It is possible that 1 Kgs 6:35 describes another overlaying technique.

4.8 The Cherubs

193

I suggest that several motifs could easily coexist together. In other words, it is not necessary to assume that once a new motif was added, the old one had to be effaced. On the other hand, a major restructuring of the temple, especially if the walls were torn down and rebuilt or new structures were added to the temple, was an opportunity to introduce major changes in the décor of the temple.

4.8 The Cherubs The term ‫ ְּכרּוב‬appears twenty times in 1 Kgs 6–8. Judging from the description in 1 Kgs 6:23–28 and the remarks in 8:6–8, the cherubs were the only monumental statuary legitimately introduced into the temple.351 Besides the statues of the cherubs, cherub-like figures were carved on the temple walls (cf. §4.7). In the following paragraphs I will argue that the account in 1 Kgs 6–8 telescopes different evolutionary phases of the cherub statues, whose shape and location changed probably as a result of changes in religious views as well as changes in the layout of the temple. 4.8.1 Textual Witnesses Before undertaking any analysis of the cherub account, it is necessary to assess the extant witnesses to 1 Kgs 6:23–28. The Masoretic Text of Codex Leningradensis, which is identical with that of the Aleppo Codex and the texts recovered from the Cairo Genizah, is mirrored in three important versions in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Targum Jonathan translates the Hebrew text into Aramaic almost word for word. Among the Greek witnesses, Codex Alexandrinus adheres to the Hebrew text represented by MT, and the same is true of the Latin Vulgate. The situation becomes more complicated when other Greek manuscripts are taken into consideration (see the chart on pp. 194–195, with notes on p. 196).352 Codex Vaticanus presents a shorter text than MT, and it is also the least comprehensible of the extant witnesses. The most comprehensive description of the cherubs is given by the Antiochian text. The manuscripts in this group give a more logical description, clarifying or eliminating the grammatical and syntactical problems of the Hebrew text. Finally, the last stage in the elaboration of the cherub narrative can be observed in 2 Chr 3:10–13 and Josephus (Ant. 8.72–73).

351 For possible roles or functions of the cherubs, see Mettinger 1982, 1995, 2006; Borowski 1995; and Petit 2011. 352 The extant texts from Qumran do not contain the section on the cherubs, nor has the Old Latin text been preserved.

194

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Codex Alexandrinus

Antiochian Text

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ δαβεὶρ δύο χερεβεὶν ξύλων κυπαρισίνων δέκα πήχεων μέγεθος ἐσταθμωμένων 24 καὶ πέντε πήχεων πτερύγιων αὐτοῦ τὸ ἑν καὶ πέντε πήχεων πτερύγιον αὐτοῦ τὸ δεύτερον δέκα ἐν πήχει ἀπὸ μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕως μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ 25 και δεκα εν πεχει οὕτως τῷ χερουβ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὶ συντέλεια μία ἀμφοτέροις τοὶς χερουβείν

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ δαβεὶρ δύο χερουβὶμ ξύλων κυπαρισσίνων, δέκα πήχεων τὸ μέγεθος ἐσταθμωμένον. 23 καὶ πέντε πήχεων τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ χερουβ τοῦ ἑνός καὶ πέντε πήχεων τὸ πτερύγιον αὐτοῦ τὸ δεύτερον, δέκα ἐν πήχει ἀπὸ μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕως μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ 24

οὕτως καὶ τῷ δευτέρῳ χερουβίμ, ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὶ συντέλεια μία ἀμφοτέρων

24

καὶ τὸ ὕψος τοῦ χερουβ τοῦ ἑνὸς δέκα ἐν πήχει καὶ οὕτως τὸ χερουβ τοῦ δεύτερου 27 καὶ εθηκεν ἀμφότερα τὰ χερουβειν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἐσωτάτου καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτῶν καὶ ἥπτετο ἡ πτέρυξ τοῦ ἑνὸς τοῦ τοίχου καὶ ἡ πτέρυξ τοῦ χεροὺβ τοῦ δευτέρου ἥπτετο τοῦ τοίχου τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν αἱ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἥπτετο πτέρυξ πτέρυγος

καὶ τὸ ὕψος τοῦ χεροὺβ τοῦ ἑνὸς δέκα ἐν πήχει∙ οὕτως καὶ τὸ δεύτερον χερούβ. 26 καὶ ἀμφότερα τὰ χερουβὶμ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἐσωτάτου καὶ διεπέτασε τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἥπτετο ἡ πτέρυξ ἡ μία τοῦ χεροὺβ τοῦ τοίχου τοῦ οἴκου καὶ ἡ πτέρυξ τοῦ χεροὺβ τοῦ δευτέρου ἥπτετο τοῦ τοίχου τοῦ ἑτέρου, καὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν αἱ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἥπτοντο πτέρυξ πτέρυγος

καὶ περιέσχεν τὰ χερουβεὶν χρυσίῳ

27

23

26

28

22

25

καὶ περιέσχε τὰ χερουβὶμ χρυσίῳ

Codex Vaticanus 22

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ δαβεὶρ δύο χερουβείν

22 and in the dabeir he made two cherubim,

δέκα πήχεων μέγεθος ἐσταθμωμένον

with a size measured of ten cubits

23 καὶ πέντε πήχεων πτερύγιονa αὐτοῦ τὸ δεύτερον δέ  b ἐν πήχει δέκα ἀπὸ μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦc

23

οὕτως τῷ χεροὺβ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὶ συντέλεια μία ἀμφοτέροις συντέλεια μίαd

καὶ τὸ ὕψος τοῦ χερουβεὶν ἐν πήχει καὶ οὕτως τὸ χερουβεὶν τὸ δεύτερον 26 καὶ ἀμφότερα τὰ χερουβεὶν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἐσωτάτου καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτῶν καὶ ἥπτετο πτέρυξ μία τοῦ τοίχου

24 thus (it was) with regard to the second cherub, in one measure (it was) one completion, with regard to both (it was) one completion. 25 And the height of the cherubim (was) in cubit and thus (was) the other cherubim. 26 And both cherubim (were) in the midst of the innermost house and they spread their wings and one wing touched the wall

καὶ πτέρυξ ἥπτετο τοῦ τοίχου τοῦ δευτέρου

and (the other) wing touched the second wall

καὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτοῦ αἱ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἥπτοντο πτέρυξ πτέρυγος

and its wings, those in the middle of the house, were touching wing to wing.

καὶ περιέσχεν τὰ χερουβεὶν χρυσίῳ

27 And he overlaid the cherubim with gold.

25

27

and its second wing (was of estimated size) of five cubits, while, (it was) ten in cubit from the part of its wing,

195

4.7 Decoration of the Temple Rahlfs

NETS

Masoretic Text

23

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ δαβιρ δύο χερουβιν

And in the dabir he made two cheroubin

δέκα πήχεων μέγεθος ἐσταθμωμένον 24 καὶ πέντε πήχεων πτερύγιον τοῦ χερουβ τοῦ ἑνός καὶ πέντε πήχεων πτερύγιονe αὐτοῦ τὸ δεύτερον ἐν πήχει δέκα ἀπὸ μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ εἰς μέρος πτερυγίου αὐτοῦf

of ten cubits measured size.

25 οὕτως τῷ χερουβ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὶ συντέλεια μία ἀμφοτέροις

25

καὶ τὸ ὕψος τοῦ χερουβ τοῦ ἑνὸς δέκαg ἐν πήχει καὶ οὕτως τὸ χερουβ τὸ δεύτερον 27 καὶ ἀμφότερα τὰ χερουβιν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἐσωτάτου καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτῶν καὶ ἥπτετο πτέρυξ μία τοῦ τοίχου

26 And the height of the one cheroub ten in cubits and so the second cheroub

‫קֹומת ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחד‬‎ ַ  26 ‫ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה וְ ֵכן ַהּכְרּוב‬ ‫ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬

27 And both the cheroubin were in the midst of the innermost house and he spread out their wings, and one wing was touching the wall,

‫רּובים‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ֵּתן ֶא‬‎27 ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫ְּבתֹוְך ַה ַּביִ ת ַה ְּפנ‬ ‫ת־ּכנְ ֵפי‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ְרׂשּו ֶא‬ ‫ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים וַ ִּתּגַ ע ְּכנַ ף־‬ ‫ָה ֶא ָחד ַּב ִּקיר‬

καὶ πτέρυξ ἥπτετο τοῦ τοίχου τοῦ δευτέρου

and a wing of the second was touching the wall,

καὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν αἱ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἥπτοντο πτέρυξ πτέρυγος

and their other wings which were in the midst of the house were touching wing to wing. 28 And he overlaid the cheroubin with gold.

26

28 καὶ περιέσχεν τὰ χερουβιν χρυσίῳ

23

24 And five cubits the wing of the one cheroub and five cubits its second wing and from the tip of its wing to the tip of its wing ten in cubits;

thus it was with the second cheroub, with one measure one completion for both.

‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ַּב ְּד ִביר ְׁשנֵ י‬‎23 23 And he made ‫י־ׁש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫רּובים ֲע ֵצ‬ ִ ‫ ְכ‬in the debir two cherubs of oleaster wood, ‫קֹומתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות‬ten cubits (was) its height. ‫‌וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף‬‎24 24 And five cubits ‫( ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחת‬was) one wing of the cherub ‫ וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף‬and five cubits ‫( ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ ית‬was) the other ‫ ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות ִמ ְקצֹות‬wing of the cherub; ‫ד־קצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו‬ ְ ‫ ְּכנָ ָפיו וְ ַע‬ten cubits from the extremities of its wings to the extremities of its wings. ‫וְ ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה‬‎25 25 And ten in cubit(s) ‎‫ ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י ִמ ָּדה‬was the other cher‫ ַא ַחת וְ ֶק ֶצב ֶא ָחד ִל ְׁשנֵ י‬ub. One measure‫ ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים‬ment, one shape to both cherubs

‫ּוכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬ ְ ‫נֹגַ ַעת ַּב ִּקיר ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬ ‫יהם ֶאל־ּתֹוְך‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַכנְ ֵפ‬ ‫ַה ַּביִ ת נֹגְ עֹת ָּכנָ ף ֶאל־‬ ‫ָּכנָ ף‬ ‫רּובים‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ַצף ֶא‬‎28 ‫זָ ָהב‬

26 The height of the first cherub (was) ten in cubit(s) and thus (was) the other cherub. 27 And he placed the cherubim in the midst of the inner house. And the wings of the cherubs were spread out, the wing of one cherub touched (one) wall, (while) the wing of the other cherub was touching the other wall, and their other wings toward the center of the house were touching wing to wing. 28 And he overlaid the cherubs with gold.

196

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Notes a The entire part is omitted only in Ba2. b Only in B. c The other part of the comparison is omitted in Bgpa2. d Ba2. e In MN rell E; variants in beghb(uid)imnostvyc2 44. f MN rell. g AMN rell 44 AS; variants in bgehbiov.

Confronting such a variety of manuscripts, scholars adopt one of two approaches. The first is to accept MT as the base text and use the Greek versions as secondary sources.353 The second approach is to reconstruct the LXX version of the passage. A generally accepted reconstruction of LXX is that of Rahlfs, which is similar to the Antiochian text. Rahlfs’s reconstruction has been followed by the NETS translation and the Septuaginta Deutsch. The major defect of this reconstruction, however, is that it does not take into consideration Codex Vaticanus and smooths out the syntactical problems and ruptures of MT (see below). Given these methodological problems, I will focus rather on the Antiochian text, Codex Vaticanus, and MT rather than on Rahlfs’s reconstruction. The Antiochian text eliminates all the problematic passages in MT and adds some pronouns and other words. As a result, the Antiochian text offers a clear, coherent, and smoothly flowing description of the two cherubs located in the debir. The extensive syntactical problems in MT hinder interpreters’ attempts to reconstruct the cherubs. Following the basic rules of textual criticism, it can be concluded that the Antiochian text is the result of intentional redactional interventions aimed at creating a clear description of the cherubs. This short presentation of the textual witnesses can be summarized by sorting the witnesses into two categories: those that are aligned with MT and attest the original version of the text, and those that attest the revised version. I. Original version of the text 1. Shorter form (Ba2) 2. Longer form with ruptures (MT followed by Targum, Cairo Genizah, A, Vulgate) 3. Longer form without ruptures (Antiochian text) II. Revised version: 2 Chr 3 and Josephus

Now we can reformulate the main question of this study as it applies to the cherubs: Do the variations among the witnesses represent multiple accounts of the cherubs? In other words, do the accounts of the cherubs in 1 Kgs 6‒8 / 3 Kgdms 6–8 describe a single sculpture or set of sculptures placed in the debir and never altered, or rather several different statues or their different phases? If we look at the Antiochian text, 2 Chr 3:10–13, and Josephus, then our response is definitely

353

Barnes 1908, 51–52; Mulder 1998, 265–271.

4.8 The Cherubs

197

positive: these texts offer a coherent description of two cherubs. But can we simply discard MT and B as full of scribal errors? 4.8.2 The Cherubs according to the Masoretic Text Let us focus first on MT 1 Kgs 6:23–24. ‫י־ׁש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫רּובים ֲע ֵצ‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ַּב ְּד ִביר ְׁשנֵ י ְכ‬‎23a And he made in the debir two cherubs of oleaster wood, ‫קֹומתֹו‬ ָ ‫ ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות‬‪ 23b ten cubits (was) its height. ‫וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחת‬‎24a And five cubits (was) one wing of the cherub ‫וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ ית‬‎24b and five cubits (was) the other wing of the cherub; ‫ד־קצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו‬ ְ ‫ע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות ִמ ְקצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו וְ ַע‬‎ ֶ 24c ten cubits from the extremities of its wings to the extremities of its wings.

The generally accepted view that the cherubs were two statues placed by Solomon in the debir whose wings sheltered the ark founders on the numerous grammatical, syntactical, and logical problems contained in MT. These problems led a few commentators to refrain from smoothing out the inconcinnities of the text, as most modern translations do for the sake of comprehensibility. The first problem in 1 Kgs 6:23–28 is located in vv. 23–24. The first part of v. 23 speaks about two cherubs, whereas the second part uses a form with an unexpected singular pronominal suffix (“its height”) instead of the expected plural (“their height”). Similarly, in v. 24c singular suffixes (“its wings”) instead of plural (“their wings”) are used. The awkward singular suffix in v. 23b is blurred in most translations. Some translations substitute plural forms – “they were ten cubits high” – or even eliminate this part of the verse. Most translations opt to interpret the singular suffix as distributive: “each was ten cubits high.” Although this sounds good in English, it glosses over the problem in the Hebrew text. To resolve this problem, scholars have proposed different solutions. The first solution, suggested already in 1900 by R. Kittel and W. Nowack,354 simply eliminates the troubling v. 23b, resulting in a smoother description of the cherubs. However, it is difficult to accept the elimination of v. 23b since it is present in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts. The second and most frequently cited proposal came from B. Stade. He concluded that the singular suffix is original and should not be changed to a plural form. In order to remove the difficulties caused by the singular, he suggested inserting v. 26 between vv. 23a and 23b, yielding the following original text:355 ‫ ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות‬23b ‫קֹומת ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחד ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה וְ ֵכן ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬ ַ 26 ‫י־ׁש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫רּובים ֲע ֵצ‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ַּב ְּד ִביר ְׁשנֵ י ְכ‬‎23a ‫ וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחת וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ ית ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות ִמ ְקצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו וְ ַעד־‬24 ‫קֹומתֹו‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י ִמ ָּדה ַא ַחת וְ ֶק ֶצב ֶא ָחד ִל ְׁשנֵ י ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים‬25 ‫ְקצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו‬

354 355

Kittel and Nowack 1900, 52. Stade and Schwally 1904, 7, 89.

198

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

M. Noth accepted the idea that something was missing between vv. 23a and 23b, but he was hesitant to accept Stade’s rearrangement of the text, since according to Noth it would create a strange redundancy by repeating a remark on the size of the cherubs. Instead, Noth concluded that the missing text that once separated vv. 23a and 23b would have referred to a sort of platform on which the cherubs stood.356 Besides the incongruous singular suffixes, other peculiarities appear in 1 Kgs 6:23–24. In these verses, the dimensions are expressed in ‫“ ַאּמֹות‬cubits,” whereas in the following verses the dimensions are qualified by the phrase ‫“ ָּב ַא ָּמה‬in cubit.” Studying the terms ‫ ָּב ַא ָּמה‬and ‫אּמֹות‬, ַ J. S. DeVries suggested that these expressions point to two different sources used by the authors.357 Moreover, the logic of vv. 23–28 is quite problematic. In vv. 23–24 are described two cherubs. All of a sudden, the following verse (v. 25) refers to “the second cherub,” but the previous verses mention no “first cherub.” Why then does the biblical text speak of a second cherub? The contrast between vv. 23–24 and vv. 25–28 is further underlined by the usage of numerals. Verse 24 speaks about the “first” and “second” wings of the same cherub (numerals in feminine) whereas vv. 25–27 speak about the wingspan and the height of the “first” and “second” cherub (numerals in masculine). This brief overview identifies some of the problems in the Hebrew and Greek texts that have resisted exegetes’ efforts to harmonize them. Ruptures in MT and textual strata These incongruities and contradictions point to several ruptures in the text. The most plausible solution to these problems is to read 1 Kgs 6:23–28 as the product of several scribes who edited the text and inserted their comments into it. The idea that vv. 23–28 contain material added by later editors has been advanced by most commentators, though the proposals often contradict each other. Without presenting an exhaustive list of opinions, a survey of scholarship on the passage shows that the proposal that has gained the most adherents is Stade’s suggestion to place v. 26 between vv. 23a and 23b (cf. above). I suggest, however, that a better solution, one that does not require reordering the verses as Stade suggested, is to group them thus: vv. 23–24, 25–27, and 28. Let me offer the most important arguments for such a division. On the one hand, the problems with singular suffixes are confined to vv. 23– 24; in the rest of the passage there are no such problems. Moreover, only in these verses did the author use the expression ‫אּמֹות‬, ַ whereas in the remainder of the description of the cherubs he used the term ‫ּב ַא ָּמה‬. ָ Finally, only in these verses are the wings explicitly said to measure five cubits in length.

356

173. 357

Noth 1968, 101, 122–123. For a similar rearrangement of the text, see Gray 1976, 170– DeVries 2003, 90–93. This idea was contested by P. Zamora García (2011, 152).

4.8 The Cherubs

199

On the other hand, vv. 25–27 open by giving the size of the “second cherub” without mentioning the first one – a conspicuous rupture in the text.358 As Noth observed, Stade’s proposal to insert v. 26 between vv. 23a and 23b is problematic since it would repeat a remark on the size of the cherubs. Noth’s reluctance to subscribe to Stade’s argument can be further justified. Verses 23 and 26 use two different formulas to express dimensions in cubits, and therefore putting them next to each other would create another problem. Verse 26 is closely connected with v. 25b and therefore it should remain where it is. Only in vv. 25b–26 does the author insist that both cherubs had the same form, and since nothing like this is mentioned in the previous verses, placing v. 26 after v. 23 would insert an extraneous element within vv. 23–24. No extant manuscript supports Stade’s conjecture; on the contrary, the manuscripts solidly attest the Hebrew order of the verses. These arguments suggest that despite widespread acceptance of Stade’s proposal, keeping v. 26 in its present location is contextually justified, although it is definitely the lectio difficilior. Moreover, most commentators have observed that v. 27 does not speak about the debir but about ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫“ ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬the inner house.” I argued above that this is the oldest technical term in 1 Kgs 6‒8 (cf. §4.2.1). Finally, v. 28 is generally considered a later addition coming from a different hand than the previous verses.359 Consequently, grouping vv. 23–28 into three units – vv. 23–24, 25–27, and 28 – respects the lectio difficilior of MT and eliminates the need to reorder the verses. Also, this division better follows the contours of the cherub passage’s technical vocabulary, and it confines the grammatical problems to one unit. Therefore partly in accordance, partly in disagreement with other scholars, I suggest that the cherub section of MT 1 Kgs 6 contains three strata: Stratum A: A section on the cherubs located in the debir, marked by singular suffixes and the use of ‫ ַאּמֹות‬in measurements (vv. 23–24). Stratum B: A section that opens with a reference to an unconnected “second” cherub and places both cherubs in the inner house; this section is marked by plural suffixes and dimensions that use ‫( ָּב ַא ָּמה‬vv. 25–27). This section can be subdivided into two parts: the first deals with the form of the cherubs, the second with their location. Stratum C: A note on the covering of the cherubs with gold (v. 28).

As I have done in other sections of this monograph, I now ask whether it is possible to connect the textual strata with changes in the form or ornamentation of the cherubs in the temple. Following the division of the text presented above, it is possible to individuate three moments in the history of the cherubs. Listed in the order in which they appear in 1 Kgs 6, they are as follows: A. Monumental statuary is placed in the debir (vv. 23–24). B. Two matching cherubs are installed in the inner house (vv. 25–27). C. The cherubs are covered with gold (v. 28). All Greek versions contain the particle οὕτως at or near the beginning of this passage, which connects both sections. 359 Benzinger 1899, 36; Jones 1984, 171; Mulder 1998, 271. 358

200

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

The question of whether the literary sequence of these moments in the biblical text corresponds to the historical sequence of stages in the development of the cherubim can only be answered by determining the relative dates of the three literary strata in vv. 23–28. Stratum A (1 Kgs 6:23–24) Within 1 Kgs 6:23–24 a parallel structure (v. 24a–b) is embedded between the singular-suffix segments (vv. 23b and 24c):

‫י־ׁש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫רּובים ֲע ֵצ‬ ִ ‫וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ַּב ְּד ִביר ְׁשנֵ י ְכ‬‎23a

A ‫ קֹומתֹו‬ ָ

‫ע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות‬‎ ֶ 23b



B

‫ּכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחת ַאּמֹות‬‎ ְ ‫וְ ָח ֵמׁש‬‎24a



Bʹ

‫ ְּכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ ית ַאּמֹות‬‪‫וְ ָח ֵמׁש‬‎24b



Aʹ

‫ד־קצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו‬ ְ ‫‏ּכנָ ָפיו וְ ַע‬ ְ

‫ מ ְקצֹות‬ ִ

‫ע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות‬‎ ֶ 24c

The introductory verse specifies the location of the cherubs (in the debir) and the type of material (oleaster wood360). Segments 23b and 24c are the only passages that use singular suffixes to refer to the cherubs. G. Hentschel was the first to conclude from the three singular suffixes that this section speaks about one cherub.361 However, his proposal remains problematic, since it does not explain why v. 24c twice uses the plural forms ‫קצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו‬, ְ which presuppose two cherubs. Both segments of the frame (vv. 23b and 24c) start with the expression “ten cubits,” creating a synthetic parallelism (ten cubits – its height, ten cubits – from the extremities of its wings to the extremities of its wings).362 Verses 24a and b, embedded within the frame, represent a perfect example of staircase parallelism: a-b-c1 / a-b-c2. By means of this parallelism the author defines the length of each wing as five cubits. Since the two interior segments are yoked by means of parallelism, the three singular suffixes concentrated in the two frame segments should also be read together. Therefore I suggest that the suffixes refer to a statuary complex comprising two wooden cherubs that should be understood as a single object standing ten cubits high. When vv. 23 and 24 are read together, the cherubs form an impressive piece of monumental wooden statuary. Given that the height of this complex was ten cubits and each wing was five cubits long, there are two ways to imagine how the pair of cherubs was arranged. Either the two cherubs stood next to each other, with one wing of each cherub directed downward and the other upward, or one cherub was on top of the other.

360 Scholars have proposed various identifications of the source of ‫י־ׁש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫ע ֵצ‬: ֲ the olive tree, the wild olive (Olea europaea), the oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia), or the Aleppo pine (Mulder 1998, 268–269). 361 Hentschel 1984, 46. 362 Watson 1984, 150–156.

201

4.8 The Cherubs

Stratum B (1 Kgs 6:25–27) Verses 25–26 in Stratum B represent the most problematic part of the cherub narrative. As mentioned above, v. 25a starts with an unexpected reference to “the second cherub” and gives its size: ‫וְ ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬. Taking into consideration other features of vv. 25–27 as a whole, I have suggested that the disorienting ordinal is best explained through diachronic analysis,363 i.e., as a trace of the activity of the final redactor, who combined two different descriptions of the cherubs. The claim that different types of cherubs were featured in Stratum A and Stratum B can be further advanced by an analysis of the location of the cherubs according to each stratum (see §4.8.4 below). Building on this diachronic analysis of 1 Kgs 6:23–27, we can ask what kind of cherubs are described in Stratum B. Verse 25b gives a general statement emphasizing that the cherubs were perfectly alike.364 The statues were fashioned as a pair, having exactly the same size and shape (cf. 1 Kgs 7:37). This general statement is demonstrated by stating the height of the first and then the second cherub (v. 26). To this end the author employs masculine ordinal numerals to refer to the first and the second cherub. General statement (v. 25b): Demonstration (v. 26):

‫ִמ ָּדה ַא ַחת וְ ֶק ֶצב ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ִל ְׁשנֵ י ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים‬ ‫קֹומת ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחד‬ ַ ‫ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה‬ ‫וְ ֵכן ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬

One measurement, one shape to both cherubs The height of the first cherub (was) ten in cubit and thus (was) the second cherub.

The second part of the passage associated with Stratum B (v. 27) describes the position of the cherubs’ wings. In contrast to the description of the wings in Stratum A, which is restricted to their length, Stratum B describes the orientation of Two other interpretations of the disconnected ordinal form ‫ ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬are possible: (‭1) The author intentionally starts with a description of the second cherub, then moves to a description of both cherubs, and finally to a description of the first and the second cherub. If we take a closer look at this section, it begins and ends with the expression “the second cherub,” which would support the hypothesis that the first mention of “the second cherub” should be regarded as an intentional choice by the author, who wanted to start his description in an unusual way – i.e., with the second cherub – and then move on to a description of both cherubs. (2) The phrase ‪‫ וְ ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬could easily be changed into ‫“ ְׁשנֵ י ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים וְ ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה‬and ten in cubit (were) both cherubs.” However, the former expression has no parallel in the Hebrew Bible, and the latter expression is not reflected in any textual witness. Therefore, the most plausible solution remains to view the text as the result of redactional activity. 364 It is possible that these verses were also worked over by a later redactor. In particular, ‫ ִמ ָּדה ַא ַחת וְ ֶק ֶצב ֶא ָחד ִל ְׁשנֵ י ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים‬occurs only in 1 Kgs 7:37. The term ‫ ִמ ָּדה‬occurs in the tabernacle account (Exod 26:2, 8; 36:9, 15) and some later texts (Isa 45:14; Ezek 40–48; Zech 2:5; Neh 3). The distribution of these occurrences would suggest that the phrase was added later in order to reconcile the description of the cherubs with the tabernacle account. However, this suggestion should be accepted with caution, since the term occurs also in Ps 39:5. 363

202

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

the two cherubs with respect to the temple and to each other: one wing of each cherub touched a wall of the temple, and the wings of the cherubs touched each other in the middle of “the temple.”





‫ת־ּכנְ ֵפי ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ְפ ְרׂשּו ֶא‬ ‫ ּב ִּקיר‬ ַ ‫ ּב ִּקיר ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬ ַ ‫ נֹגַ ַעת‬ ‫ל־ּכנָ ף‬ ָ ‫ ּכנָ ף ֶא‬ ָ ‫ נֹגְ עֹת‬

‫ף־ה ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ַ‫ ּכנ‬ ְ ‫ ּוכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬ ְ ‫יהם ֶאל־ּתֹוְך ַה ַּביִת‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַכנְ ֵפ‬

‫וַ ִּתּגַ ע‬

Simply put, the cherubs of Stratum B were two identical statues. The fact that they were separate figures is emphasized by the coherent use of plural suffixes in contrast to the singular suffixes found in Stratum A. The wings of these two enormous statues spread out so that they filled the entire space of the inner house from one wall to the other. The text, however, does not specify the material of which the statues were made. Nor does it report the length of each wing or clarify their orientation – i.e., whether the wings protruded forward or backwards, whether one wing pointed upward and the other downward, or whether both wings were turned upward or downward. Stratum C (1 Kgs 6:28) According to Stratum C, the cherubs were at some point transformed into golden statues: ‫רּובים זָ ָהב‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫“ וַ יְ ַצף ֶא‬and he overlaid the cherubs with gold.” The gilding of the cherubs may have occurred during the period when parts of the temple and some special objects were overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20–22, 30, 32, 35; 7:48–51). 4.8.3 The Cherubs according to Codex Vaticanus (B) The description of the cherubs in Codex Vaticanus is more complicated. At first glance the differences between the Antiochian text and B in 1 Kgs 6:23 (see §4.8.1) could easily be explained as a mistake caused by a double case of homoioteleuton triggered by the repetition of τὸ πτερύγιον in the first half of the verse and πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ in the second half (the words in gray are present in Ant. but not B). καὶ πέντε πήχεων τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ χερουβ τοῦ ἑνός καὶ πέντε πήχεων τὸ πτερύγιον αὐτοῦ τὸ δεύτερον, δέκα ἐν πήχει ἀπὸ μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕως μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ

However, the homoioteleuton here may be illusory. First, the occurrence of two mistakes caused by homoioteleuton in the same verse or sentence is exceedingly rare. Moreover, other differences between B and Ant. can be noted: in v. 23, B adds the particle δέ and δέκα which is not present in other manuscripts; in v. 24, B adds συντέλεια μία, absent in all other manuscripts except a2; and in v. 25, B omits τοῦ ἑνὸς δέκα. Finally, B gives an asymmetrical text whereas the Antiochian text reproduces the symmetry of MT. These differences suggest that we should not dismiss B as a witness in a so-called non-kaige section of Kings. On the other hand, there are some peculiarities of B that correspond to the Antiochian text but

203

4.8 The Cherubs

differ from MT. For example, both Greek texts employ in v. 23 the term “size” and not “height” as in MT; both Greek texts add “estimated,” which is not in MT; and in v. 24 both Greek texts add “its,” which is not in MT, and use a singular form of the noun “wing” (πτερυγίου αὐτοῦ) where MT uses a plural (‫)ּכנָ ָפיו‬. ְ These differences and similarities indicate that B here represents the earlier form of the Greek text; Ant. derives from the text-type preserved in B and was adjusted to MT in order to create a smoothly flowing description.365 Masoretic Text ‫רּובים ֲע ֵצי־‬ ִ ‫ וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ַּב ְּד ִביר ְׁשנֵ י ְכ‬23 ‫קֹומתֹו‬ ָ ‫ָׁש ֶמן ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות‬ ‫ וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף‬24 ‫ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחת וְ ָח ֵמׁש ַאּמֹות ְּכנַ ף‬ ‫ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ ית ֶע ֶׂשר ַאּמֹות ִמ ְקצֹות‬ ‫ד־קצֹות ְּכנָ ָפיו‬ ְ ‫ְּכנָ ָפיו וְ ַע‬

Codex Vaticanus 22

καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ δαβεὶρ δύο χερουβείν δέκα πήχεων μέγεθος ἐσταθμωμένον

And he made two cherubim in the dabeir, with a size measured of ten cubits

23

καὶ πέντε πήχεων πτερύγιονa αὐτοῦ τὸ δεύτερον δέb ἐν πήχει δέκα ἀπὸ μέρους πτερυγίου αὐτοῦc

and its second wing (was of estimated size) of five cubits, while (it was) ten in cubit from the part of its wing,

22

23

‫ וְ ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה ַה ְּכרּוב‬25 ‫ַה ֵּׁשנִ י ִמ ָּדה ַא ַחת וְ ֶק ֶצב ֶא ָחד ִל ְׁשנֵ י‬ ‫ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים‬

24

οὕτως τῷ χεροὺβ τῷ δευτέρῳ ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὶ συντέλεια μία ἀμφοτέροις συντέλεια μίαd

thus (it was) with regard to the second cherub, in one measure (it was) one completion, with regard to both (it was) one completion.

‫קֹומת ַה ְּכרּוב ָה ֶא ָחד‬ ַ 26 ‫ֶע ֶׂשר ָּב ַא ָּמה וְ ֵכן ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י‬

25

καὶ τὸ ὕψος τοῦ χερουβεὶν ἐν πήχει καὶ οὕτως τὸ χερουβεὶν τὸ δεύτερον

25

‫רּובים‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫ וַ ּיִ ֵּתן ֶא‬27 ‫ימי וַ ּיִ ְפ ְרׂשּו ֶאת־‬ ִ ִ‫ְּבתֹוְך ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ‫ף־ה ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ַ‫ַּכנְ ֵפי ַה ְּכ ֻר ִבים וַ ִּתּגַ ע ְּכנ‬ ‫ּוכנַ ף ַה ְּכרּוב ַה ֵּׁשנִ י נֹגַ ַעת‬ ְ ‫ַּב ִּקיר‬ ‫יהם ֶאל־ּתֹוְך‬ ֶ ‫ַּב ִּקיר ַה ֵּׁשנִ י וְ ַכנְ ֵפ‬ ‫ל־ּכנָ ף‬ ָ ‫ַה ַּביִת נֹגְ עֹת ָּכנָ ף ֶא‬

26

καὶ ἀμφότερα τὰ χερουβεὶν ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ ἐσωτάτου καὶ διεπέτασεν τὰς πτέρυγας αὐτῶν καὶ ἥπτετο πτέρυξ μία τοῦ τοίχου καὶ πτέρυξ ἥπτετο τοῦ τοίχου τοῦ δευτέρου καὶ αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτοῦ αἱ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἥπτοντο πτέρυξ πτέρυγος

And both cherubim (were) in the midst of the innermost house and they spread their wings and one wing touched the wall and (the other) wing touched the second wall and its wings, those which were in the middle of the house, were touching wing to wing.

‫רּובים זָ ָהב‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ַצף ֶא‬28

27

καὶ περιέσχεν τὰ χερουβεὶν χρυσίῳ

And he overlaid the cherubim with gold.

24

And the height of the cherubim (was) in cubit and thus (was) the other cherubim.

26

27

Notes a The entire part is omitted only in Ba2. b Only in B. c The other part of the comparison is omitted in Bgpa2. d In Ba2. 365 I would like to express my gratitude to A. Schenker and S. Pisano for their advice and help regarding this intricate textual problem.

204

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Let us focus our attention on B. The major differences between MT and B are concentrated in 3 Kgdms 6:22–24 (≅ MT 1 Kgs 6:23–25), whereas in 3 Kgdms 6:25–27 (MT 1 Kgs 6:26–28) they are almost identical. Similarly, most of the redactional interventions in the Antiochian text that aim to clarify incomprehensible phrases are also concentrated in the first part (3 Kgdms 6:22–24 // ≅ MT 1 Kgs 6:23–25). The first part of this section in the Vaticanus manuscript (3 Kgdms 6:22–23) corresponds to Stratum A in MT (1 Kgs 6:23–24), whereas MT’s Stratum B (1 Kgs 6:25–27) is almost identical in all manuscripts. Even though it is impossible to understand all the details of B, some important differences between MT and B can be noted. First, B does not explain what the cherubs were made of. The expression ‫י־ׁש ֶמן‬ ָ ‫ ֲע ֵצ‬is found only in MT and in the Antiochian text. Moreover, B adds the particle οὕτως in v. 24, which forces the reader to connect 3 Kgdms 6:22–23 with 24–27. B emphasizes that the cherubs were two identical statues, each ten cubits high. Much space is given to the description of the “second” elements (“the second wing” and “the second cherub”). Finally, B mentions the number “ten” just twice, in contrast to the fourfold repetition of “ten” in MT. The abbreviated rendering of Stratum A in the text of Vaticanus, as well as the numerous interventions in this passage in both MT and the Antiochian text, leads to the conclusion that despite its secondary position in 1 Kgs 6:23–28, it is MT’s Stratum B that should be considered part of an older description of the cherubs. Stratum A shows clear signs of being a later elaboration of the original account. 4.8.4 Location of the Cherubs Stratum A places the cherubs in the debir (6:23). In 1 Kgs 8:6–7 we learn that the priests transferred the ark of the covenant to the Holy of Holies and placed it under the wings of the cherubs. Furthermore, it is important to note that in 1 Kgs 8:6–9 the cherubs are located in the Holy of Holies, which is identified with the debir (cf. §4.2.1). The note that the poles of the ark were too long suggests, as most commentators have noted, that the placement of the ark under these cherubs betrays a departure from an earlier arrangement.366 However, 1 Kgs 6:27a (Stratum B) reads ‫ימי‬ ִ ִ‫רּובים ְּבתֹוְך ַה ַּביִת ַה ְּפנ‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ְּכ‬ ַ ‫וַ ּיִ ֵּתן ֶא‬ “and he put the cherubs in the midst of the inner house.” I have argued that the term “the inner house” is the oldest term used to describe the interior of the temple and that it practically disappeared from circulation after the exile. Accordingly, the cherubs of Stratum B are connected with the earliest terminology used of the temple’s interior. A note on the wings of the cherubs in 1 Kgs 6:27 provides indirect support for this hypothesis. The verse reads ‫ל־ּכנָ ף‬ ָ ‫יהם ֶאל־ּתֹוְך ַה ַּביִת נֹגְ עֹת ָּכנָ ף ֶא‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַכנְ ֵפ‬. The expression ‫ ֶאל־ּתֹוְך ַה ַּביִת‬can be understood in two ways. Usually it is interpreted V. Fritz (2003, 75) concludes that the temple was not originally built to house the ark: “Its building is connected with the imagination of Yahweh’s dwelling in the temple (see [1 Kgs] 8:12–13).” 366

4.8 The Cherubs

205

in light of the configuration of the cherubs in 2 Chr 3:13 to mean that “their wings were touching each other toward the center of the temple (= toward the inside).”367 But this interpretation of ‫ ֶאל־ּתֹוְך ַה ַּביִת‬presumes that the cherubs were in the debir, facing toward the center of the temple. The second interpretation, which adheres more closely to the text, yields the translation “their wings were touching each other in the midst of the temple” (cf. TNK, TOB, Vulgate, etc.). Not only is this interpretation closer to the Greek versions of 1 Kgs 6:27 (αἱ πτέρυγες αὐτῶν αἱ ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἥπτοντο πτέρυξ πτέρυγος), it does not require the assumption that the cherubs were in the debir. Rather, “in the midst of the temple” may be plausibly explained here as an alternative way of referring to the space otherwise called “the inner house” (cf. § 4.2.1). In short, the location of the cherubs differs according to Stratum A and Stratum B. The wooden statuary complex of Stratum A was placed in the debir, whereas the two ten-cubit-high cherubs of Stratum B were located in the inner house. 4.8.5 How Many Types of Cherubs? Let us sum up the results of the previous analyses. Above all, we cannot overlook the textual and grammatical problems of MT and the extant textual witnesses. I tried to demonstrate that if we attempt to create a coherent and comprehensive picture of the cherubs located in the debir by following the Antiochian text, we do an injustice to MT and B. For this reason I offer the following summary, organizing the textual witnesses into three groups. Three-stratum texts and three stages in the development of the cherubs: The best solution so far advanced to the problems of 1 Kgs 6:23–28 leans on diachronic analysis and tries to individuate textual strata on the basis of ruptures in the text. Siding with most scholars, I have suggested above that there are three compositional strata in the description of the cherubs in MT. Stratum A (vv. 23–24) locates the cherubs in the debir and by means of singular suffixes describes them as a monumental group of wooden statues ten cubits high. Stratum B (vv. 25–27) locates the cherubs in the inner house. This stratum knows two identical cherubs, each ten cubits high, whose wings touched the walls and, in the midst of the temple, each other’s wings. Stratum C (v. 28) presents cherubs that were overlaid with gold, similar to other features of the temple that were gilded. Returning to the question of whether the literary sequence of MT’s three strata corresponds to the historical sequence of stages in the development of the cherubs, the answer is no. A thorough comparison of MT, Ant., and B indicates that the earliest stage in the history of the cherubs is reflected in Stratum B, which describes two separate but identical statues filling the entire inner house. These statues were subsequently moved to the debir together with the ark (1 Kgs 8:6–9). In the second stage (Stratum A), the original pair of statues was replaced 367

Fritz 2003, 67.

206

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

by a monumental wooden sculpture that better fitted the debir. Finally, at some point the sculpture was covered with gold (Stratum C). The results may be summarized thus: Stage 1: Two matching cherubs are installed in the inner house (Stratum B, vv. 25–27) Stage 2: A monumental sculpture is placed in the debir (Stratum A, vv. 23–24) Stage 3: The sculpture of the cherubs is covered with gold (Stratum C, v. 28)

Two-stratum texts and two stages in the development of the cherubs: The differences between Stratum A and Stratum B of MT and B disappear in Ant. This text eliminated the differences between the two strata by adding personal pronouns and other particles. As a result of this redactional activity, the Antiochian text presents a coherent description of two cherubs located in the debir, which is identical with the inner house. However, the note on the gilding of the statues that is tacked onto the end of the narrative points to a second stage of development. Harmonistic paraphrases of Kings and a single configuration of the cherubs: Similar to the Antiochian tradition, both Chronicles and Josephus present a coherent description of two cherubs, eliminating all the problematic parts of the Stratum A and Stratum B descriptions in MT and B. Moreover, each text goes one step further in its elaboration of the description of the cherubs. Second Chronicles 3:10 moves the note on the overlaying of the cherubs with gold to the very beginning of the description. Josephus claims that the cherubs were made of solid gold (Ant. 8.72). In this way, the last traces of the textual strata and their discordant voices were eliminated, and the gilding of the statues was neatly incorporated into the cherub narrative. To bring this discussion to a close, let us once again ask the question, Do the biblical texts describe one or more versions of the cherubs? If our point of reference is Josephus and 2 Chr 3:10–13, then our response is very simple: throughout its history the temple contained a pair of golden cherubs. If our point of reference is the Antiochian text, then we can speak about two stages in the history of the cherubs: first, two wooden statues were made, and later they were overlaid with gold. However, if our point of reference is B and MT, and if we take seriously the grammatical and syntactical problems of these texts, then we can distinguish two configurations of cherubs: first, a pair of unattached and identical statues; second, a single piece of monumental sculpture. This textual tradition corresponds to the organization of the interior of the temple preserved in longer and shorter versions (1 Kgs 6:15–22; see §4.5.2). The longer version in the Antiochian tradition presents only one view of the debir, which is reflected in that tradition’s two-stratum account of the cherubs. The longer version in MT has a more complex tradition about the interior of the temple that is paralleled by MT’s three-stratum account of the cherubs.

4.9 Synthesis

207

4.9 Synthesis Before proposing a hypothesis about stages in the development of the Jerusalem temple, let me summarize the results of this chapter thus far. The analysis of terminology employed in the building narrative led us to conclude that the oldest term used for the description of the interior parts of the temple was “the inner house.” This term was later reinterpreted as an equivalent of the term debir. The most recent stratum employs the term “the Holy of Holies,” interpreting the temple as the continuation of the tabernacle of the Pentateuch. Finally, the most frequently used technical terminology – debir, hekal, and ulam – describes a tripartite temple. Comparison of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts describing the structure that surrounded the temple revealed three textual layers. The oldest stratum of the temple had a so-called ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure that later editors identified with the walls surrounding the temple. The second stratum refers to a ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure. This layer had two phases: in the earlier phase the structure had two floors, and in the later phase three floors. Finally the book of Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles, along with other postexilic biblical books, describe a sophisticated system of rooms and chambers attached to the temple. Examining the ulam, I proposed that the final text contains three traditions on this architectural feature: (1) the temple had no ulam, or it was only a shallow porch; (2) the ulam was a vestibule in front of the main hall, typical of the tripartite temples of the ancient Near East; and (3) the ulam had the form of a tower. Analysis of the dimensions of the temple showed that the textual witnesses preserve two versions of the temple: a smaller temple measuring 40 × 20 × 25 cubits (B and Ant.), and a larger temple measuring 60 × 20 × 30 cubits (MT and A, S). However, the major difference between B/Ant. and MT lies in 1 Kgs 6:15–20. The version in MT is longer than that in B/Ant., and the witnesses describe different ceilings, different ways of constructing the innermost part of the temple, and different layouts of the temple, including the location of the debir. Comparison of these shorter and longer versions showed that the interior of the temple was changed at least twice. A study of the materials used for the construction of the temple showed that the manuscripts record three types of construction material used in the walls and foundations of the temple: cedar for the walls, unhewn or rough-hewn stone overlaid with cedar for the walls, and ashlars for the foundations and walls. The account in 1 Kgs 6‒8 also mentions different types of decorations. First, gourds and calyxes were carved on the interior cedar panels of the temple. Second, cherubs and palm trees were engraved on the doors of the temple and on the exterior and interior sides of its walls. Finally, three decorative motifs – cherubs, palm trees, and calyxes – were engraved on the temple doors and on the walls. Moreover, the biblical account knows two techniques for overlaying a surface with gold: one probably involved soldering pieces of metal together, while the other required a hammer or mallet.

208

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

Finally, the analysis of MT, B, and Ant. distinguished two configurations of the sanctuary’s cherubs, each associated with a different location. A wooden statuary group (described in MT’s Stratum B) was placed in the debir, whereas two separate ten-cubit-high cherubs (described in Stratum A) were located in the inner house. 4.9.1 Minimalist Proposal Comparing the excavated temples of the Levant with 1 Kgs 6‒8, most scholars agree that the temples of Ain Dara and Tell Tainat best match the preexilic temple of Jerusalem.368 As a result, most monographs take for granted that the preexilic temple followed a tripartite plan. Without undermining this tradition, this study has shown that this proposal should be more nuanced. First, the extant manuscripts and versions differ significantly in the description of the preexilic temple; second, the final texts contain too many grammatical and lexical problems to permit the reconstruction of a single coherent plan of the temple. The assumption that the preexilic temple was tripartite in structure, coupled with differences among the witnesses and the contradictions present in the final text of the Hebrew Bible, led most scholars to exclude one or another textual tradition or to emend the text. In other words, to present the preexilic temple as a tripartite temple similar to those of Ain Dara and Tell Tainat requires privileging one manuscript over the others, as well as revising the biblical text and excluding from consideration entire sections of the building narratives in other biblical books. Comparing the manuscripts and the versions, I argued that the final texts contain different textual strata. The fact that it is impossible to harmonize these strata without altering the biblical texts leads to two possible conclusions: first, the building narratives are full of scribal errors and therefore must be “cleaned up” by modern interpreters; second, the various grammatical problems, contradictions, and textual traditions are signs of redactional activity. Opting for the latter explanation, I suggested, following numerous scholars, that the difficulties of the final texts are not always due to scribal errors but sometimes the result of later editors’ additions. Such additions were not arbitrary glosses, however, and some of them reflect changes in the preexilic temple. Accordingly, syntactical problems and variants in the extant manuscripts can provide valuable indicators of the different phases of the preexilic temple. Was the temple ever renovated or remodeled? The minimum conclusion to be drawn from the textual evidence is that most parts of the temple were modified. The ulam was rebuilt according to a new “earthquake code,” and the structure that originally surrounded the temple was changed at least twice. The body of the temple itself also underwent some changes. The cedar walls of the temple were replaced with stone walls and interior cedar paneling. The debir was

368

Monson 2000; Novák 2012.

4.9 Synthesis

209

reconstructed at least twice, the cherubs changed their form or location twice, and the décor of the temple also changed several times. Thus even a minimalist interpretation of the textual evidence leads us to some important conclusions. Since the final form of 1 Kgs 6–8 telescopes texts stemming from different phases of the temple of Jerusalem into one narrative, these chapters do not present one preexilic temple; rather, they combine elements from different phases of the temple. As V. A. Hurowitz noted, “the temple in the description may not be the temple Solomon built in its pristine form.”369 The preexilic temple was not built once and for all by Solomon but was modified a few times by his successors. As a result, the tripartite temple reconstructed in most commentaries and monographs is one version of the preexilic temple, but not the only one. 4.9.2 Phases of the Temple: A Plausible Hypothesis Using the results of the previous chapters, can we correlate the development of the biblical texts with the development of the preexilic temple? In what follows I try to match the phases of the temple based on the analysis of 1 Kgs 6–8 (Chapter 4) with the periods of the temple based on the analysis of various textual strata, glosses, and other literary indicators in various parts of the Bible (Chapter 3). Phase I: Cedar temple (corresponding to Period I) Comparison of the extant manuscripts enabled us to recover the oldest strata of the building narrative in 1 Kgs 6–8. The earliest stratum describes the temple walls as made of cedar. Cherubs and palm trees (a two-motif style of decoration) were engraved on the exterior and interior sides of these cedar walls, as well as on the gates. The earliest account of the structure that surrounded the temple refers to it as a ‫וע‬ ַ ‫ ;יָ ִצ‬this structure was interpreted by later editors as a system of supportive walls five cubits high. The oldest stratum of the text probably makes no reference to the ulam; alternatively, the early ulam was only a shallow porch omitted from the description of the temple. The oldest term for the interior of the temple is “the inner house,” which later redactors identified with the debir. In this “inner house” were located two identical statues of cherubs. Their outspread wings filled the entire space of the inner house from one wall to the other. Finally, the older temple was smaller, only forty cubits long. What is the image of the temple according to these earliest texts? Piecing together the data, we may conclude that the most ancient version of the preexilic temple had cedar walls. The exterior and interior sides of the walls were engraved with figures of cherubs and palm trees. Since it would make little sense to decorate the exterior sides of the walls and then hide them from view with a tall structure surrounding the temple, the cedar-walled temple can be correlated with 369

Hurowitz 2010, 302.

210

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-structure, a system of supportive walls only five cubits high. This early temple was probably forty cubits long and had a shallow porch or none at all. The main part of the temple was called “the inner house.” Since the debir is only mentioned in later strata of the text (cf. §4.5.2), this temple would have contained only one room, in the center of which stood two large cherubs. The temple probably had compartments inside, used as storage places or as the temple treasury (cf. §3.4). It is worth noting that several terracotta models of one-room shrines with no porch or a very shallow one have been unearthed in Syria-Palestine; they have been dated to the second and first millennium BCE.370 The existence of these models as well as the one-room temple of Aleppo371 suggests that one-room temples were common in the Iron Age I–II, and thus the erection of a one-room royal chapel in Jerusalem would have been a normal phenomenon in the tenthninth century BCE. This type of temple would fit the historical setting of Period I as described in section §3.7.2. In the tenth-ninth century BCE the temple of Jerusalem was not yet a national shrine where people could make daily offerings. Most temples in the ancient Near East were not usually open to the public; rather, they functioned as royal chapels and served state interests. Access to such chapels was limited to the king and his dignitaries. This concept was not foreign to the Israelite mindset, and it is reflected in the confrontation between Amos and Amaziah, when the king states that Bethel is a royal sanctuary (Amos 7:13).372 The beautifully decorated cedar temple described in the earliest texts in 1 Kgs 6–8 was thus the royal chapel of the king of Jerusalem.373 Phase II: Tripartite temple with side-rooms (corresponding to Periods II and III) A major transformation took place when the temple’s cedar walls were replaced with unhewn or rough-hewn stones and paneled with cedar on the inside. Since the ornamentation on the cedar paneling was different from that on the walls of cedar, it is logical to conclude that the original cedar walls were torn down and replaced with stone walls. Such a reconstruction would have affected the walls, ceiling, furnishings, and décor of the temple. In effect, the temple was entirely rebuilt. The interior of the new temple was completely covered with cedar: the walls were faced with cedar, the debir and the ceiling were made of cedar, and even the altar was covered with cedar. The rebuilding of the temple provided an opportunity to alter its basic plan. The temple was enlarged. The ulam became a vestibule serving as an entrance hall of the temple. The shorter and longer descriptions of the interior of the temple preserved in MT, B, and Ant. make it possible to distinguish phases in the Culican 1976; Bretschneider 1991, Tf. 81–84, 90–95. Kohlmeyer 2012, 64–65. 372 Barnes 1908, 44. 373 Brueggemann 2000, 88. 370 371

4.9 Synthesis

211

development of the temple’s layout. A debir was created either behind or within the temple. As a result, the old one-room temple became a tripartite temple with a debir, a hekal, and an ulam. New cherubs were sculpted of wood and placed in the debir. The new plan of the preexilic temple would have corresponded to that of a Langhaus-Tempel. The impact of the Langhaus-Tempel is well documented in Iron Age II Amman. The temple preserved from Amman has a rectangular shape (Langhaus-Tempel), but it contains only one main room. This temple was similar to Late Bronze Age temples unearthed at Megiddo, Sichem, Hazor, and other sites. The Amman temple was not the migdol-type of the Middle Bronze Age. The stratigraphy showed that the original temple had a square main hall and only one entrance hall; a second entrance hall was added later.374 This suggests that it was not difficult to transform a one-room temple into a bipartite or tripartite temple. Similar bi- or tripartite temple plans had been in use in the Levant since the third millennium and they represented the cultural tradition of Syria-Palestine. This model was not given a “canonical” form, however, as local variants on the design are plentiful.375 For this reason it is impossible to select one exemplar, for example the temple of Tell Tainat, and use it as a template for reconstructing the preexilic temple of Jerusalem. It is commonsensical to assume that when the walls and the layout of the temple were changed, the structure surrounding the temple also changed (cf. §4.3.4). The investigation of the surrounding structure showed that the ‫צ ָלע‬-system ֵ differed significantly from the ‫וע‬ ַ ‫יָ ִצ‬-system. Whereas the latter was only five cubits high, the former was a corridor-like structure similar to those associated with temples excavated in Ain Dara, Ekron, and Tell Halaf.376 A closer investigation showed that MT preserved two versions of the ‫צ ָלע‬-structure. ֵ The first had two levels; no first level is mentioned. The middle level had no compartments and was accessible by a winding stair; the third level consisted of compartments. This system was replaced by a three-story structure with recesses. S. Mazzoni suggested that Temple AI at Tell Afis, which has an ambulatory or side annexes, might be a local adaptation of the Langraum Assyrian temple that was provided with side chambers.377 If she is correct, then the tripartite preexilic temple of Jerusalem with its surrounding ‫צ ָלע‬-structure ֵ might have been an intercultural hybrid, combining a typical Syrian in antis model with Assyrian ambulatory annexes. The transformation of the one-room temple into a bipartite or tripartite temple would correspond well with what we know of Periods II–III, during the ninth–eighth century BCE (§3.7.1). Joash’s reconstruction of the temple and Ahaz’s renovation provided ample opportunities to turn a one-room temple into Elkowicz 2014. Mazzoni 2010, 362–363. 376 Novák 2014, 268–269. 377 Mazzoni 2012, 30. For other important studies on temple architecture, see Gerlach and Raue 2013. 374 375

212

Chapter 4: Stratigraphy of the Text and Stratigraphy of the Temple

a tripartite temple surrounded by a corridor-like structure. This structure would have provided sufficient auxilliary space for the new needs of a temple that was gradually becoming a national shrine. Phase III: Urban temple (corresponding to Periods III and IV) In its final phase the preexilic temple achieved a form that was emulated in its postexilic replacement. The preexilic temple was completely incorporated into the palace-temple complex. It had chambers and rooms attached to it. The ulam was rebuilt to earthquake-resistant standards and became a more prominent structure than the old vestibular ulam. The interior of the temple also underwent some changes. An upper floor was added to the temple. The debir was transformed into “the Holy of Holies,” and gold became the predominant ornamental feature of the temple, even though the use of gilding was not restricted to this phase. Possibly some parts of the temple furniture were also covered with gold. The transformation of the preexilic temple into the center of an architectural complex would parallel the development of other ancient Near Eastern temples that became central shrines.378 G. J. Wightman concluded that temples and royal palaces did not exist alone. “Around them sprawled the bulk of the town, with its suburbs of private dwellings, narrow alleys, factories, markets, and so on.”379 Scholars have adduced some indirect evidence that this description was valid during the late preexilic phase of the temple. This transformation of the temple would have started in Period III and reached its peak in Period IV – i.e., the eighth–sixth century BCE (§3.7.1). In this period the city of Jerusalem became the center of the Judean kingdom. Archaeological excavations have illustrated the rapid growth of the city. Biblical texts referring to this period describe the temple as a destination to which people journeyed on special occasions, as well as the site of daily offerings. During this phase the temple was completely integrated with the courts, houses, gardens, and other edifices of the Temple Mount.

378 A good example of such a transformation is the development of the temple at Ḫirbet ʿAṭārūs, Jordan. The one-room temple of Phase I (Early Iron Age IIA) was transformed into a temple with multiple chambers, rooms, and cultic installations during Phase II (Mid Iron Age IIA) (Chang-Ho 2012, 204–208). 379 Wightman 2006, 147.

Chapter 5

Conclusion Scholars, painters, architects, and believers have been exploring Solomon’s temple for centuries, each in their own way. This study is one link in the long chain of research on various aspects of the temple. In this monograph I have explored the biblical and extrabiblical material in order to determine whether the preexilic temple underwent construction activity that partially or substantially changed its form, decoration, layout, and surrounding edifices. The investigation started with a short study of parallels demonstrating that the temples of the ancient Near East were regularly remodeled or rebuilt. The reasons are obvious. Temples became dilapidated over time, or they were looted or damaged by natural disasters, and their reconstruction provided an opportunity to enhance the glory of gods and kings. Just about any part of a temple could be rebuilt. Obviously, it was much easier to change the furnishings of a temple than to rebuild the whole temple. A major reconstruction required specialists, economic and financial power, and effective administration. The changes had to be approved by a god. Finally, a study of technical vocabulary showed that some expressions found in the biblical accounts were used throughout the Levant. Is this a sufficient basis for claiming that the preexilic temple also underwent some changes? In Chapter 3 I explored passages from various parts of the Bible to collect evidence supporting or disproving such a claim. The book of Kings credited several monarchs with more or less serious interventions in the temple. Some interventions were highly praised; others were condemned. The Bible reports that the temple was despoiled or looted eight times. Twice the temple became dilapidated and had to be rebuilt, once by Joash and once by Josiah. Finally, religious reforms left traces on the temple as well. The courts, gates, adjacent houses, and surrounding structures were rebuilt more often. The temple décor and furnishings were also changed a few times. Finally, the problematic passage 2 Kgs 16:17–18 suggests that the temple building itself might also have been changed. These results contradict the building narrative in 1 Kgs 6‒8, which ascribes the construction of the temple in all its glory to Solomon. For this reason, in Chapter 4 I analyzed the building narrative, taking into account recent advances in the study of the Septuagint. The comparison of the surviving witnesses, in particular MT, B, and the Antiochian tradition, made it evident that the manuscripts present different portraits of the preexilic temple. Moreover, as the biblical texts were edited over the centuries, they accrued numerous glosses. Building on the results of textual criticism and literary-critical analysis, I argued that the termi-

214

Chapter 5: Conclusion

nology for the temple and its parts can be dated to different periods. That being the case, I argued that the oldest term used for the description of the interior of the temple was “the inner house” and the most recent was “the Holy of Holies.” Between these two chronological poles can be situated the terms debir, hekal, and ulam. Incongruencies in the Greek and Hebrew texts, moreover, brought to light different strata in the text describing the structure surrounding the temple: a ַ‫יָצִוע‬-stratum and a ‫צֵלָע‬-stratum. The latter had two stages: one with two floors and the other with three floors. The textual witnesses also present different concepts of the ulam, different dimensions of the temple, and different accounts of the interior layout. A study of the materials used in the temple’s construction showed that B and Ant. preserve the tradition of a temple built of cedar, whereas MT contains several insertions describing a temple built of stone walls overlaid on the inside with cedar wood. Nor do descriptions of the temple’s décor add up to one coherent system. For example, the decorations on the cedar walls differed from the decorations on the cedar paneling overlaying the stone walls. Finally, MT preserves evidence of two types of cherubs, whereas B and Ant. know only one type. Similarly, there were discrepancies in the descriptions of gilded items. Given the grammatical and syntactical problems and differences in the extant manuscripts and versions that attest the presence of multiple textual strata, it is impossible to reconstruct a coherent picture of the preexilic temple without changing the text or dismissing entire sections of the biblical text as scribal errors. Since the biblical text is so far the only “Temple Mount” available for excavation, I have argued that it is a better policy to respect the lectio difficilior and not dismiss the problematic aspects of the text as scribal errors. That said, I believe that the insertions, glosses, and grammatical and syntactical inconcinnities, as well as the differences between the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin manuscripts, can be taken as signs that redactors and editors continued to remodel the building account in 1 Kgs 6–8. At the same time, these glosses and changes could hardly have been arbitrary alterations of the sacred text. As a result, the textual difficulties provide precious evidence that betrays how later redactors and editors updated the text in order to reflect changes in the temple. In sum, analysis of the problematic texts makes it possible to distinguish different phases in the temple’s history. Following this methodological premise, I have argued that the familiar model of the tripartite temple represents only one phase of the preexilic temple, and not the earliest one. At the end of Chapter 3 and again at the end of Chapter 4, I presented a hypothesis regarding the different periods (Chapter 3) and phases (Chapter 4) of the preexilic temple. These two proposals attempted to encompass both textual evidence and available archaeological data. According to this analysis, the history of the preexilic temple can be divided into three phases. In its first phase, circa the tenth–ninth century BCE (corresponding to Period I and the beginning of Period II, §3.7.1), the temple was a freestanding building. It had one room and its walls were constructed of cedar. The walls were decorated outside and within with figures of cherubs and palm trees. The temple

Chapter 5: Conclusion

215

was surrounded by the ַ‫ יָצִוע‬-structure, probably a set of supportive walls or buttresses about five cubits high. If it had a porch, it was a shallow one. The Greek manuscripts suggest that the temple was forty cubits long, twenty cubits broad, and twenty-five cubits high. The inner room of the temple was called “the inner house.” Inside the inner house there were two cherubs. They were identical tencubit-high statues. Along the walls were compartments for storing the temple treasure. This temple served as a royal chapel and not as a shrine for the people. In the second phase (corresponding to the end of Period II and the beginning of Period III, §3.7.1), circa the ninth–eighth century BCE, the temple was substantially rebuilt. The original temple had become dilapidated and damaged from looting, and therefore it required repair. Joash’s renovation of the temple, as a study of the vocabulary used to describe it showed, was not mere maintenance work but a substantial reconstruction. Similarly, Ahaz’s interventions in the temple precincts as well as the temple furnishings can be accommodated in our picture of the temple during this phase. The cedar walls were torn down and replaced with walls of stone. However, the concept of the temple as a “house of cedar” was maintained. The stone interior of the temple was completely covered by cedar boards decorated with gourds and calyxes. The temple was enlarged and now measured sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. It was divided into three parts: debir, hekal, and ulam. The analysis of the text showed that the temple interior was rebuilt a few times during this phase. During this phase or the following one, the two statues of cherubs from the first phase were replaced with a monumental wooden sculptural group of two cherubs that was located in the debir. The ‫צֵלָע‬-structure was built around the temple. According to the analysis proposed above, this structure was substantially modified after it was constructed. Since no first level is mentioned, it can be concluded that the first version of the ‫צֵלָע‬-type surrounding structure had two levels. The middle level was accessible by a winding staircase but had no compartments, while the third level had rooms or compartments. This structure was replaced with a three-story ‫צֵלָע‬-structure with recesses. From the biblical texts it is impossible to conclude whether the change in the ‫צֵלָע‬-structure took place during the second or third phase of the preexilic temple. With the second phase of the preexilic temple we can also connect the reconstruction of the temple precincts. New gates were added and the court was paved with cobblestones. Moreover, a new, large altar was built in front of the temple and the bronze furnishings of the inner court were changed. The new altar, new gates, paved court, and altered furnishings marked the beginning of the temple’s transformation into a national shrine open to the people, who could gather there and present their offerings. The third phase lasted until the destruction of the temple (corresponding to the end of Period III and Period IV, §3.7.1). During this phase the temple was transformed into an urban temple and completely incorporated into the architecture of the densely constructed Temple Mount. It is difficult to determine whether some features of the temple belong to this phase or are to be associated with the

216

Chapter 5: Conclusion

reconstructed temple of the restoration period. We can only assume that the temple had once again been rebuilt before the exile, most likely with ashlar stones. This temple had a superior floor. Its furnishings and decoration were changed a few times in response to changing religious currents. It was completely surrounded by chambers, houses, courts, and gardens. The visually dominant part of the temple became its tower-like ulam. The temple in this phase functioned as a full-fledged national shrine. Evidently this hypothesis must be tested and refined in light of future archaeological excavations. In the meantime, this study has attempted to present the stratigraphy of the temple according to an “excavation” of the biblical texts. Despite the counterarguments noted in the previous chapters, a three-phase history of the preexilic temple remains a plausible hypothesis founded on the results of textual and literary criticism. Let me also formulate a safe minimalist conclusion. In negative terms, we should no longer speak about the preexilic temple but about different phases of the preexilic temple, which the biblical text merges in the account of the construction of the Solomonic temple. Thus, there was no moment when all the architectural and decorative elements ascribed to Solomon coexisted in the actual temple. Some features were added later and some were replaced with others. Consequently, the temple as reconstructed from the final form of 1 Kgs 6–8 never existed in reality. In positive terms, the preexilic temple went through several stages of growth and development. The tripartite temple, similar to those excavated in Ain Dara and Tell Tainat, corresponds to only one phase in the long history of the Jerusalem temple. The tripartite structure was preceded by a cedar temple and followed by a sophisticated temple complex. *** At last, let us return to the question raised in the introduction: If a priest of Solomon’s temple were to be transferred into the late preexilic temple, would he recognize it? The biblical texts provide enough evidence to conclude that the early preexilic temple underwent changes that might surprise or even shock Solomon’s priest as he gazed on the temple just before the exile. He would hardly recognize the scene and he might easily become lost in a maze of unfamiliar courts, chambers, and gates. But what would surprise and probably shock him the most would be all the activity that filled the temple precincts. He would have to face crowds flowing toward the temple from all directions and filling the courts. He would have to witness the political discussions and various transactions that took place in the temple precincts, and finally he would have to assist in all kinds of sacrifices and offerings on the altar, some of which he had never performed before. When he entered the temple itself he would have difficulty recognizing its décor. Some of the temple furniture would be familiar, but the rest would be wholly new to him. Finally, he would not fail to notice some important differences in the structure of the temple itself.

Bibliography Abou-Assaf, A. 1990. Der Tempel von ʻAin Dārā. Damaszener Forschungen 3. Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. Abusch, I. T., and P.-A. Beaulieu. 2001. Historiography in the Cuneiform World: Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part I: Harvard University. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Achenbach, R. 2003. “Einige Beobachtungen zu der sogenannten ‘Jeho’asch Inschrift.’ Eine Schrifttafel aus dem 9. Jh.v.Chr. oder eine Fälschung? oder: Über einen erstaunlichen Internetauftritt.” BN 117: 5–14. Ackerman, S. 1992. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-century Judah. HSM 46. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Albers, G. 2004a. Studien zu Siedlungsheiligtümern des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Palästina: Unregelmässige und symmetrische Tempel im typologischen und funktionalen Vergleich, vol. 1. Rahden: VML, M. Leidorf. –. 2004b. Studien zu Siedlungsheiligtümern des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Palästina: Unregelmässige und symmetrische Tempel im typologischen und funktionalen Vergleich, vol. 2. Rahden: VML, M. Leidorf. Allen, L. C. 1990. Ezekiel 20‒48. WBC 29. Dallas: Word Books. –. 2002. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Dallas: Word Books. Alobaidi, S.-J., Y. Goldman, and M. Küchler. 1987. “Le plus ancien guide juif de Jérusalem.” In Jerusalem: Texte – Bilder – Steine, edited by M. B. Küchler and C. Uehlinger, 37–53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Altmann, P. 2014. “Tithes for the Clergy and Taxes for the King: State and Temple Contributions in Nehemiah.” CBQ 76: 215–229. Ambraseys, N. 2005. “Historical Earthquakes in Jerusalem – A Methodological Discussion.” Journal of Seismology 9: 329–340. Amiran, D. H. K. 1952. “A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine.” IEJ 2 (1): 48–65. Amiran, D. H. K., E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte. 1994. “Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 B.C.E.” IEJ 44 (3–4): 260–305. Anastasio, S. 2011. Costruire tra i due fiumi: Introduzione all’edilizia in Mesopotamia tra neolitico ed età del ferro. Florence: Centro Editoriale Toscano. Andersen, F. I., and D. N. Freedman. 1988. Amos: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday. Antonio Ramirez, J. 1991. Dios Arquitecto: J. B. Villalpando y el Templo de Salomón. Madrid: Siruela. Arieh, E. 2007. “Earthquake.” EJ 6:83. Ariel, D. T., and A. De Groot. 1996. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, vol. 4. Qedem 35. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology. Armstrong, K. 1996. A History of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. London: HarperCollins. Arnaud, D. 2007. Corpus des textes de bibliothèque de Ras Shamra-Ougarit (1936–2000) en sumérien, babylonien et assyrien. Barcelona: AUSA.

218

Bibliography

Arnold, D. 1992. Die Tempel Ägyptens: Götterwohnungen, Kultstätten, Baudenkmäler. Zürich: Artemis & Winkler. Auld, A. G. 1994. Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Ausloos, H., B. Lemmelijn, and J. C. Trebolle Barrera, eds. 2012. After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Avigad, N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: T. Nelson. Avishur, Y. 1994. Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms. Jerusalem: Magnes. Bagg, A. M. 2013. “Palestine under Assyrian Rule: A New Look at the Assyrian Imperial Policy in the West.” JAOS 133: 119–144. Balfour, A. 2012. Solomon’s Temple: Myth, Conflict, and Faith. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Banks, D. 2006. Writing the History of Israel. New York: T. & T. Clark. Barkay, G. 2003. “Chapter Two: Iron Age II Incised Potsherds and Potters’ Marks.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969– 1982, vol. 2, edited by H. Geva, 50–62. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barker, M. 2004. Temple Theology: An Introduction. London: SPCK. –. 2011. Temple Mysticism: An Introduction. London: SPCK. Barnes, W. E. 1908. The Two Books of the Kings. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnett, R. D., J. Curtis, and N. Tallis. 2008. The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasirpal II. London: British Museum. Barthélemy, D. 1982. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. OBO 50.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Beals, E. W. 1965. “The Remnant Cedar Forests of Lebanon.” Journal of Ecology 53: 679–694. Becking, B., and M. Dijkstra. 2001. Only One God?: Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Becking, B., and L. L. Grabbe. 2011. Between Evidence and Ideology: Essays on the History Of Ancient Israel read at the Joint Meeting of The Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Werkgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009. Leiden: Brill. Beckman, G. M., and T. J. Lewis. 2006. Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Providence, RI : Brown Judaic Studies. Beentjes, P. C. 2008. Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles. Leiden: Brill. Begg, C. 2000. Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy: (AJ 9,1–10,185). Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium 145. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press / Uitgeverij Peeters. Begg, C. T., and P. Spilsbury. 2005. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 5, Judean Antiquities, Books 8–10, edited by S. N. Mason. Leiden: Brill. Ben-Dov, M. 1985. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. Translated by I. Friedman. New York: Harper & Row. Ben Zvi, E. 1991. “The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in II Reg 21,1–18 and the Redactional History of the Book of Kings.” ZAW 103: 355–374. –. 1997. “The Chronicler as a Historian: Building Texts.” In The Chronicler as Historian, edited by M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, S. L. McKenzie, and R. B. Dillard, 132–149. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 9. Freiburg im Breisgau: J. C. B. Mohr. Bergamini, G. 1977. “Levels of Babylon Reconsidered.” Mesopotamia 12: 111–152.

Bibliography

219

Berman, J. A. 1995. The Temple: Its Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society / Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion. –. 1998. “Sacred Spaces of Standing Stones: High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan.” BAR 24 (5): 38–45. Bird, P. A. 1997. “The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-historical Analysis of Hebrew qādēš-qӗdēšîm.” In Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995, edited by J. A. Emerton, 37–80. Leiden: Brill. Bloch-Smith, E. 2002. “Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space.” In Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, edited by B. M. Gittlen, 83–94. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Block, D. I. 1997. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. –. 1998. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Blyth, E. 2006. Karnak: Evolution of a Temple. New York: Routledge. Boda, M. J., and J. R. Novotny, eds. 2010. From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Bodi, D. 1991. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Bogaert, P.-M. 2003. “La demeure de Dieu selon Jérémie et Ézechiel: La maison, l’Exil ou la Ville.” In Quelle maison pour Dieu?, edited by C. Focant, 209–228. Paris: Cerf. Borowski, E. 1995. “Cherubim: God’s Throne?” BAR 21 (4): 36–41. Bourke, S. 2012. “The Six Canaanite Temples of Ṭabaqāt Faḥil.” In Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.): Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University Of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010), edited by J. Kamlah and H. Michelau, 159–201. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Braidwood, R. J., L. S. Braidwood, and R. C. Haines. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 61. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Braun, R. 1976. “Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28, and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles.” JBL 95 (4): 581–590. Bretschneider, J. 1991. Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jahrtausend: Phänomene in der Kleinkunst an Beispielen aus Mesopotamien, dem Iran, Anatolien, Syrien, der Levante und dem ägäischen Raum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der bau- und der religionsgeschichtlichen Aspekte. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 229. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Briggs, C. A., and E. G. Briggs. 1907. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Briggs, R. S. 2006. “The Theological Function of Repetition in the Old Testament Canon.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 28: 95–112. Bright, J. 1960. A History of Israel. London: SCM Press. Broshi, M. 1974. “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh.” IEJ 24: 21–26. Brueggemann, W. 2000. 1 & 2 Kings. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. Buis, P. 1997. Le livre des Rois. Paris: Gabalda. Bunimovitz, S., and Z. Lederman. 2009. “The Archaeology of Border Communities: Renewed Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh, Part 1: The Iron Age.” NEA 72 (3): 114–142. Buren, E. D. v. 1955. The Sun-God rising. S.l.: s.n.

220

Bibliography

Burney, C. F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford: Clarendon. Busink, T. A. 1970. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill. Cagni, L. 1969. L’epopea di Erra. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università degli Studi di Roma. Cahill, J. M. 2003. “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence.” In Vaughn and Killebrew 2003, 13–80. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. C. 2006. “Der Tempel des Gottes Assur: Materielle und ästhetische Dimension ‘Heiliger Orte’ im alten Vorderasien.” Archäologischer Anzeiger 2006 (1): 209–221. Carreira, J. N. 1969. O Plano e a Arquitectura do Templo de Salomão à Luz dos Paralelos Orientais. Porto: Oficinas Gráficos Reunidos. Carroll, R. P. 1986. Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Chaney, W. R., and M. Basbous. 1978. “The Cedars of Lebanon: Witnesses of History.” Economic Botany 32 (2): 118–123. Chang-Ho, J. 2012. “The Early Iron Age II Temple at Ḫirbet ʿAṭārūs and Its Architecture and Selected Cultic Objects.” In Kamlah and Michelau 2012, 203–221. Chyutin, M. 1997. The New Jerusalem Scroll from Qumran: A Comprehensive Reconstruction. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Claburn, W. E. 1973. “The Fiscal Basis of Josiah’s Reforms.” JBL 92 (1): 11–22. Clements, R. E. 1965. God and Temple. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Clifford, R. J. 1972. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cogan, M. 2001. I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 10. New York: Doubleday. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 1988. II Kings: A New Translation. AB 11. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Cohn, R. L. 2000. 2 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Cole, H. F. G. 1920. Concerning Solomon’s Temple. London: Samuel E. Roberts. Comay, J. 1975. The Temple of Jerusalem, with the History of the Temple Mount. London: Holt. Congar, Y. 1962. The Mystery of the Temple, or, The Manner of God’s Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Translated by R. F. Trevett. London: Burns & Oates. Cook, F. C. 1889. The Holy Bible, according to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation: Joshua–I. Kings. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Cooke, G. A. 1936. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC 21. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Craigie, P. C. 1983. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Waco, TX: Word Books. Culican, W. 1976. “A Terracotta Schrine from Achyib.” ZDPV 92 (1): 47–53. Curtis, E. L., and A. A. Madsen. 1910. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Dahood, M. J. 1966. Psalms 1–50. AB 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Dalley, S. 2004. “Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh.” JSOT 28 (4): 387–401. Dandamayev, M. A. 1979. “State and Temple in Babylonia in the First Millennium B.C.” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Con-

Bibliography

221

ference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978, edited by E. Lipinski, 589–596. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek. Davey, C. J. 1980. “Temples of the Levant and the Building of Solomon.” Tyndale Bulletin 31: 107–146. Daviau, M. P. M. 2007. “Stone Altars Large and Small: The Iron Age Altars from Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine (Jordan).” In Bilder als Quellen = Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, edited by S. Bickel, S. Schoer, R. Schurte, and C. Uehlinger, 125–149. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Day, J. 1986. “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature.” JBL 105: 385–408. –, ed. 2005. Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. London: T. & T. Clark. De Groot, A., H. Geva, and I. Yezerski. 2003. “Chapter One: Iron Age II Pottery.” In Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969– 1982, vol. 2, edited by H. Geva, 1–49. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. de Hemmer Gudme, A. K. 2013. Before the God in This Place for Good Remembrance: A Comparative Analysis of the Aramaic Votive Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim. Berlin: De Gruyter. Dell, K. J. 2011. “Amos and the Earthquake: Judgment as Natural Disaster.” In Aspects of Amos: Exegesis and Interpretation, edited by A. C. Hagedorn and A. Mein, 1–14. New York: T. & T. Clark. Deller, K. 1962. “Zur Syntax des Infinitivs im Neuassyrischen.” Or 31: 225–235. Deller, K., and S. Parpola. 1966. “Die Schreibungen des Wortes etinnu «Baumeister» in Neuassyrischen.” RA 60: 59–70. Dever, W. G., and S. Gitin. 2003. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. DeVries, S. J. 2003. 1 Kings. 2nd ed. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Dietrich, W., and M. A. Klopfenstein. 1994. Ein Gott allein?: JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. OBO 139. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Dillard, R. B. 1987. 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco, TX: Word Books. Dirksen, P. B. 1996. “1 Chronicles XXVIII 11–18: Its Textual Development.” VT 56: 429–438. Dreier, L. 2004. “Usage of hêkal in Biblical Hebrew.” In Babel und Bibel 1: Ancient Near Eastern Old Testament and Semitic Studies, edited by L. Kogan, 211–218. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities. Dubovský, P. 2006a. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19. Biblica et Orientalia 49. Rome: Pontificio Istituto biblico. –. 2006b. “Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns in 734–732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7, 2 Kgs 15–16 and 2 Chr 27–28.” Biblica 87: 153–170. –. 2012. “King’s Direct Control: Neo-Assyrian Qēpu Officials.” In Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008, edited by G. Wilhelm, 447–458. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2014. “Sennacherib’s Invasion of the Levant through the Eyes of Assyrian Intelligence Services.” In Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History, and Historiography, edited edited by I. Kalimi and S. Richardson, 249–291. Leiden: Brill.

222

Bibliography

Dumas, P. 1983. Jerusalem, le Temple de Salomon: Histoire & Symbolisme. Nice: Belisane. Dutcher-Walls, P. N. 1996. Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Edelman, D. 2008. “Hezekiah’s Alleged Cultic Centralization.” JSOT 32: 395–434. Eder, C. 2004. “Assyrische Distanzangaben und die absolute Chronologie Vorderasiens.” AoF 31: 191–236. Edersheim, A. 1987. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans. Eichrodt, W. 1970. Ezekiel: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM Press. Elgavish, D. 2000. “Objective of Baasha’s War against Asa.” In Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai, edited by G. Galil and M. Weinfeld, 141–149. Leiden: Brill. Elkowicz, D. 2012. Tempel und Kultplätze der Philister und der Völker des Ostjordanlandes: Eine Untersuchung zur Bau- und zur Kultgeschichte während der Eisenzeit I–II. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. –. 2014. “Der ammonitische Mondtempel von Ruğm el-Kursi und die Tempel des ‘syrischen Tempeltypus.’ ” BN 160: 51–57. Emerton, J. A. 1999. “ ‘Yahweh and His Asherah’: The Goddess or Her Symbol.” VT 49: 315– 337. Ephʿal, I., H. Tadmor, and N. Na’aman. 2009. Royal Assyrian Inscriptions: History, Historiography and Ideology: A Conference in Honour of Hayim Tadmor on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Ernst, S. 2006. Ahas, König von Juda: Ein Beitrag zur Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Israel. St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag. Evans, P. S. 2009. The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19. SVT 125. Leiden: Brill. –. 2010. “The Function of the Chronicler’s Temple Despoliation Notices in Light of Imperial Realities in Yehud.” JBL 129: 31–47. Eynikel, E. 1996. The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill. Fabry, H.-J. 1978. “dal; dālal; dallāh; zālal.” TDOT 3:208–230. Faust, A. 2005. “The Settlement of Jerusalem’s Western Hill and the City’s Status in Iron Age II Revisited.” ZDPV 121 (2): 97–118. –. 2006. “The Negev ‘Fortresses’ in Context: Reexamining the ‘Fortress’ Phenomenon in Light of General Settlement Processes of the Eleventh-Tenth Centuries B.C.E.” JAOS 126 (2): 135–160. –. 2010. “The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination.” ZDPV 126 (2): 117–130. Feldman, M. H., I. J. Winter, and J. Cheng, eds. 2007. Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students. Leiden: Brill. Fernández Marcos, N., J. R. Busto Saiz, et al. 1989–1996. El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega. Madrid: Instituto de Filología, C.S.I.C., Departamento de Filología Bíblica y de Oriente Antiguo. Fichtner, J., and K. D. Fricke. 1964. Das erste Buch von den Königen. Stuttgart: Calwer. Finkelstein, I. 1996. “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.” Levant 28: 177–185. –. 1998. “Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age?” Levant 30: 167– 173. –. 1999. “Hazor and the North in the Iron Age: A Low Chronology.” BASOR 314: 55–70.

Bibliography

223

–. 2003. “The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link.” In Vaughn and Killebrew 2003, 81–101. –. 2011. “Jerusalem in the Iron Age: Archaeology and Text, Reality and Myth.” In Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, edited by K. Galor and G. Avni, 189–201. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Finkelstein, I., and N. A. Silberman. 2006. “Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology.” JSOT 30: 259–285. Fitzgerald, M. 2010. “Temple Building in the Old Babylonian Period.” In Boda and Novotny 2010, 35–48. Focant, C. 2003. Quelle maison pour Dieu? Paris: Cerf. Frahm, E. 1998. “Sanherib und die Tempel von Kuyunjik.” In Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala basmu, edited by S. M. Maul, 107–121. Groningen: STYX. Frame, G. 1992. Babylonia 689–627 B.C.: A Political History. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Franklin, N. 2006. “Revealing Stratum V at Megiddo.” BASOR 342: 95–111. Fried, S. L. 2002. “The High Places (bamôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation.” JAOS 122 (3): 437–465. Fritz, V. 1977. Tempel und Zelt: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel u. zu d. Zeltheiligtum d. Priesterschrift. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. –. 2003. 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Furay, C., and M. J. Salevouris. 1988. The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide. Arlington Heights, IL: H. Davidson. Gadegaard, N. H. 1978. “On the So-Called Burnt Offering Altar in the Old Testament.” PEQ 110: 35–45. Galil, G. 2012. “Solomon’s Temple: Fiction or Reality?” In The Ancient Near East in the 12th– 10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. Proceedings of the Internatonal Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010, edited by G. Galil, A. Gilboa, A. M. Maeir, and D. e. Kahn, 137–148. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Galling, K. 1931. “Die Halle des Schreibers. Ein Beitrag zur Topographie der Akropolis von Jerusalem.” PJ 27: 51–57. Galter, H. D. 1984. “Die Batätigkeit Sanheribs am Aššurtempel.” Or 53: 433–441. –. 2004. “Geschichte als Bauwerk: Aššurtempel und das assyrische Geschichsbewusstsein.” In From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K. Grayson, edited by G. Frame, 117–135. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Ganzel, T., and E. H. Shalom. 2014. “Ezekiel’s Temple in Babylonian Context.” VT 64: 211– 226. Garbini, G. 2008. Scrivere la storia d’Israele: Vicende e memorie ebraiche. Brescia: Paideia. Garcia-López, F. 1999. “sbb; sāḇîḇ; mûsaḇ; mēsaḇ; nesibbâ; sibbâ.” TDOT 10:126–139. Garofalo, S. 1951. Il libro dei Re. Torino: Marietti. George, A. R. 1986. “A Neo-Assyrian Literary Text.” SAAB 1: 31–41. –. 1992. Babylonian Topographical Texts. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Departement Orientalistiek. –. 1993. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 1995. “The Bricks of E-SAGIL.” Iraq 57: 173–197. George, M. K. 2009. Israel’s Tabernacle as Social Space. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

224

Bibliography

Gerhards, A. 2008. “Liturgiewissenschaft und Liturgiereform: Ergebnisse und Anfrage in Bezug auf die Wort- und Raumgestalt der Eucharistie.” Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 50: 251–267. Gerlach, I., and D. Raue. 2013. Sanktuar und Ritual: Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund, Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Gerstenberger, E. S. 1988. Psalms: Part I, with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Geva, H. 2000. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. –. 2003a. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, vol. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. –. 2003b. “Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter.” In Vaughn and Killebrew 2003, 183–208. Gitin, S. 2002. “The Four-Horned Altars and Sacred Places.” In Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, edited by B. M. Gittlen, 95–123. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gitin, S., T. K. Dothan, and J. Naveh. 1997. “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron.” IEJ 47: 1–16. Gittlen, B. M. 2002. Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Godding, D. W. 1967. “Temple Specifications: A Dispute in Logical Arrangement between the MT and the LXX.” VT 17: 143–172. Görg, M. 1979. “Zwei bautechnische Begriffe in 1 Kön 6,9.” BN 10: 12–15. –. 1980. “Weiteres zur Gestalt des Tempelbaus.” BN 13: 22–25. Grabbe, L. L. 2007. Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? London: T. & T. Clark. Gray, J. 1970. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. OTL. London: SCM. –. 1976. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Greenberg, M. 1983. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Greenfield, J. C. 1958. “Lexicographical Notes I.” HUCA 29: 203–228. Gut, R. V. 1995. Das prähistorische Ninive: Zur relativen Chronologie der frühen Perioden Nordmesopotamiens, vol. 2. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Gutmann, J. 1976. The Temple of Solomon: Archaeological Fact and Medieval Tradition in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Hadley, J. M. 2000. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. New York: Cambridge University Press. Haggi, A., and M. Artzy. 2007. “The Harbor of Atlit in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician Context.” NEA 70 (2): 75–84. Haller, A., and W. Andrae. 1955. Die Heiligtümer des Gottes Assur und der Sin-Samas-Tempel in Assur. WVDOG 67. Berlin: Mann. Halpern, B. 1998. “Why Manasseh Is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition.” VT 48 (4): 473–514. Hamblin, W. J., and D. R. Seely. 2007. Solomon’s Temple: Myth and History. London: Thames & Hudson. Hamp, V. 1986. “ḥāṣēr.” TDOT 5:131–139. Haran, M. 1977. Temples and Temple-service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bibliography

225

Harper, W. R. 1905. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Harrison, T. 2012a. “West Syrian megaron or neo-Assyrian Langraum? The Shifting Form and Function of the Tell Taʿyīnāt (Kunulua) Temples.” In Kamlah and Michelau 2012, 3–21. –. 2012b. “Building XVI and the Neo-Assyrian Sacred Precinct at Tell Tayinat.” JCS 64: 125– 143. Hasegawa, S. 2012. Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haupt, P. 1902. “The Hebrew Term ‫ׁשליׁש‬.” BASS 4: 583–587. Heger, P. 1999. The Three Biblical Altar Laws: Developments in the Sacrificial Cult in Practice and Theology: Political and Economic Backround. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hengst, D. d. 2010. Emperors and Historiography: Collected Essays on the Literature of the Roman Empire. Edited by D. W. P. Burgersdijk and J. A. van Waarden. Leiden: Brill. Hentschel, G. 1981. “Zum Bau des Tempels und seiner Ausstattung.” In Dein Wort Beachten: Alttestamentliche Aufsätze, edited by J. Reindl and G. Hentschel, 16–32. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag. –. 1984. 1 Könige. Würzburg: Echter. –. 1985. 2 Könige. Würzburg: Echter. Herr, B. 2000. “Deinem Haus gebührt Heiligkeit, Jhwh, alle Tage”: Typen und Funktionen von Sakralbauten im vorexilischen Israel. Berlin: Philo. Himbaza, I. 2006. Le roi Manassé: Héritage e conflit du pardon, Essais bibliques. Genève: Labor et Fides. –. 2007. “Le Mur De Manassé (2 Ch XXXIII 14) Entre Archéologues Et Théologiens.” VT 57 (3): 283–294. Hobbs, T. R. 1985. 2 Kings. WBC 13. Waco, TX: Word Books. Hobson, R. 2012. Transforming Literature into Scripture: Texts as Cult Objects at Nineveh and Qumran. Sheffield, UK: Equinox. Hoffmann, H.-D. 1980. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 66. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Holladay, W. L. 1986. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. –. 1989. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Holloway, S. W. 2002. Aššur Is King! Aššur Is King!: Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 10. Leiden: Brill. Hossfeld, F.-L. 1986. “Die Tempelvision Ez 8–11 im Licht unterschiedlicher methodischer Zugänge.” In Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, edited by J. Lust, 151–165. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Hossfeld, F.-L., K. Baltzer, L. M. Maloney, and E. Zenger. 2005. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Howie, C. G. 1950a. “The Date and Composition of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University. –. 1950b. “The East Gate of Ezekiel’s Temple Enclosure and the Solomonic Gateway of Megiddo.” BASOR 117: 13–19. Hundley, M. B. 2011. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. –. 2013. “Sacred Spaces, Objects, Offerings, and People in the Priestly Texts: A Reappraisal.” JBL 132: 749–767.

226

Bibliography

Hurowitz, V. A. 1986. “Another Fiscal Practice in the Ancient Near East: 2 Kings 12:5–17 and a Letter to Esarhaddon (LAS 277).” JNES 45: 289–294. –. 1992. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press. –. 1995. “Solomon’s Golden Vessels (1 Kings 7:48‒50) and the Cult of the First Temple.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 151–164. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2005. “YHWH’s Exalted House – Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple.” In Day 2005, 63–110. –. 2009. “The Tenth Century BCE to 586 BCE: The House of the Lord (Beyt YHWH).” In Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, edited by O. Grabar and B. Z. Kedar, 15–35. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press; Austin: University of Texas Press. –. 2010. “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It.” In Boda and Novotny 2010, 281–302. Hurvitz, A. 1995. “Terms and Epithets Relating to the Jerusalem Temple Compound in the Book of Chronicles: The Linguistic Aspect.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 165–183. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Huxley, M. 2000. “The Gates and Guardians in Sennacherib’s Addition to the Temple of Assur.” Iraq 62: 109–137. Iwry, S. 1957. “The Qumrân Isaiah and the End of the Dial of Ahaz.” BASOR 147: 27–33. Jacquet, L. 1977. Les Psaumes et le coeur de l’homme: Etude textuelle, littéraire et doctrinale, vol. 2, Psaumes 42 à 100. Gembloux: Duculot. James, F. W. 1966. The Iron Age at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VI–IV. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Janowski, B. 2002. “Die heilige Wohnung des Höchsten: Kosmologische Implikationen der Jerusalemer Tempeltheologie.” In Keel and Zenger 2002, 24–68. Janssen, J. J. 1979. “The Role of the Temple in the Egyptian Economy during the New Kingdom.” In State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978, edited by E. Lipinski, 505–515. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek. Japhet, S. 2002. 1 Chronik. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder. –. 2003. 2 Chronik. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder. –. 2006. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Jarick, J. 2005. “The Temple of David in the Book of Chronicles.” In Day 2005, 365–381. Jenson, P. P. 1992. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Jericke, D. 2010. Regionaler Kult und lokaler Kult: Studien zur Kult- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und Judas im 9. und 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jones, G. H. 1984. 1 and 2 Kings: Based on the Revised Standard Version, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans; London: Marshall Morgan & Scott. Joosten, J. 2012. “Textual Developments and Historical Linguistics.” In Ausloos, Lemmelijn, and Trebolle Barrera 2012, 21–30. Joyce, P. M. 2005. “Temple and Worship in Ezekiel 40‒48.” In Day 2005, 146–163. Kalimi, I. 2005. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2012. “Kings With Privilege.” RB 119: 498–517.

Bibliography

227

Kamlah, J., and H. Michelau, eds. 2012. Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. mill. B.C.E.): Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Katzenstein, H. J. 1955. “Who Were the Parents of Athaliah?” IEJ 5 (3): 194–197. Kaufman, A. S. 1991. Tractate Middot: An Ancient Version Composed from Manuscripts and Early Printed Texts with Introduction, Variant Readings, Family Tree of Texts, Notes, and Temple Drawings. Jerusalem: Hra Yéra’eh Press. Keel, O. 2002. “Der salomonische Tempelweihspruch: Beobachtungen zum religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext des Ersten Jerusalemer Tempels.” In Keel and Zenger 2002, 9–23. –. 2007. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel, vol. 1, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. –. 2011. Jerusalem und der eine Gott: Eine Religionsgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Keel, O., and E. Zenger, eds. 2002. Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels. Freiburg: Herder. Keil, C. F. 1872. The Books of the Kings. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Keller, D. R., and C. A. Tuttle. 2010. “Archaeology in Jordan, 2008 and 2009 Seasons.” AJA 114: 505–545. Kellerman, D. 1997. “liškâ.” TDOT 8:33–38. Kenan, O. 2003. Between Memory and History: The Evolution of Israeli Historiography of the Holocaust, 1945–1961. Studies in Modern European History 49. New York: Peter Lang. Keulen, P. S. F. v. 1996. Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill. Kim, U. Y. 2005. Decolonizing Josiah: Toward a Postcolonial Reading of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press. King, P. J., and L. E. Stager. 2001. Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Kittel, R., and W. Nowack. 1900. Die Bücher der Könige. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Klein, A. H., and M. C. Klein. 1970. Temple beyond Time: The Story of the Site of Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Klein, R. W. 1983. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Waco, TX: Word Books. –. 2006. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. –. 2012. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Knauf, E. A. 2003. “Jehoash’s Improbable Inscription.” BN 117: 22–26. Knoppers, G. N. 2004. I Chronicles 10–29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 12A. New York: Doubleday. Kohlmeyer, K. 2000. Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo. Münster: Rhema. –. 2012. “Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo: Baugeschichte und Bautyp, räumliche Bezüge, Inventar und bildliche Ausstatung.” In Kamlah and Michelau 2012, 55–78. Koldewey, R. 1911. Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa: Nach den Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Konkel, M. 2002. “Die zweite Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48): Dimensionen eines Entwurfs.” In Keel and Zenger 2002, 154–179. Korjenkov, A. M., and E. Mazor. 2013. “The Features of the Earthquake Damage Patterns of Ancient City Ruins in the Negev Desert, Israel.” Geotechtinics 47 (1): 52–65. Korpel, M. C. A. 1991. “Soldering in Isaiah 40:19–20 and 1 Kings 6:21.” UF 23: 219–222.

228

Bibliography

Kottsieper, I. 2002. “Bäume als Kultort.” In Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, edited by P. Riede and U. Neumann-Gorsolke, 169–187. Stuttgart: Calwer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Kragelund, H. E. 1986. “Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon and the Deuteronomists: An Investigation of the Redactional Relationship between Jeremiah 7 and 26.” JSOT 36: 73–87. Kratz, R. G., and B. Neuschäfer. 2013. Die Göttinger Septuaginta: Ein editorisches Jahrhundertprojekt. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kratz, R. G., and H. Spieckermann. 2006. Götterbilder, Gottesbilder, Weltbilder: Polytheismus und Monotheismus in der Welt der Antike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. –. 2008. Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity. FAT 33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. –. 2010. One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kraus, C. S., J. Marincola, C. B. R. Pelling, and A. J. Woodman. 2010. Ancient Historiography and Its Contexts: Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kraus, H.-J. 1988. Psalms 1–59: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Kraus, W., S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund. 2014. Die Septuaginta – Text, Wirkung, Rezeption: 4. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 19.–22. Juli 2012. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kuhl, C. 1952. “Die Wiederaufnahme – eine literarkritisches Prinzip.” ZAW 64: 1–11. Kunin, S. D. 1998. God’s Place in the World: Sacred Space and Sacred Place in Judaism. London: Cassell. Laato, A. J. 1992. Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Lackenbacher, S. 1982. Le roi bâtisseur: Les récits de construction assyriens des origines à Teglatphalasar III. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Lamon, R. S., G. M. Shipton, and G. Loud. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons 1925–34. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Landersdorfer, S. K. 1927. Die Bücher der Könige. Bonn: Peter Hanstein. Laperrousaz, E.-M. 1982. “Après le ‘Temple de Salomon’ la ‘Bamah’ de Tel-Dan: L’utilisation de pierres àbossage phénicien dans la Palestine préexilique.” Syria 3 (4): 223–237. –. 1999. Les temples de Jérusalem. Paris: Paris-Méditerranée. Lasine, S. 1993. “Manasseh as Villain and Scapegoat.” In The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, edited by D. J. A. Clines and J. C. Exum, 163–183. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Lawler, A. 2009. “Temple of the Storm God.” Archaeology 62: 20–25. Leeven, A. 2012. “Returning the Body to Its Place: Ezekiel’s Tour of the Temple.” HTR 105: 385–401. Lemaire, A. 2011. “The Evolution of the 8th-Century B.C.E. Jerusalem Temple.” In The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin, edited by I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, 195–202. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2012. “La réforme du roi Josias et les cultes araméens à Jerusalem (VIIe s. av. n. è.).” In Leggo!: Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by G. B. Lanfranchi, 433–441. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Lemche, N. P. 2013. Biblical Studies and the Failure of History. Sheffield, UK: Equinox. Lerner, B. M. 2007. “Altar.” EJ 2:11–16. Lesétre, H. 1912. “Temple.” DB 5:2024–2078.

Bibliography

229

Leslie, E. A. 1936. Old Testament Religion: In the Light of Its Canaanite Background. New York: Abingdon. Leuchter, M. 2005. “The Temple Sermon and the Term ‫ מקום‬in the Jeremianic Corpus.” JSOT 30: 93–109. Levenson, J. D. 1976. “Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Levin, C. 1982. Der Sturz der Königin Atalja: Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. –. 1990. “Die Instandsetzung des Tempels unter Joasch Ben Ahasja.” VT 40: 51–88. –. 2013. Verheissung und Rechtfertigung: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lindner, M. 2006. “Quarries and Pottery at Ancient Sabra (Jordan).” PEQ 138: 119–124. Liphshitz, N., and G. Biger. 1991. “Cedar of Lebanon (“Cedrus libani”) in Israel during Antiquity.” IEJ 41 (1): 167–175. –. 1992. “Building in Israel throughout the Ages – One Cause for the Destruction of the Cedar Forests of the Near East.” GeoJournal 27: 345–352. Lipiński, E. 1975. Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics. Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta. Leuven: Leuven University Press. –. 2010. “Hiram of Tyre and Solomon.” In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception, edited by A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, 251–272. Leiden: Brill. –. 2014. “Cult Prostitution in Ancient Israel?” BAR 40 (1): 48–56, 70. Lipschits, O., Y. Gadot, and D. Langgut. 2012. “The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian Edifice.” Transeuphratene 41: 57–79. Liverani, M. 2011. Antico Oriente: Storia, società, economia. New ed. Rome: Laterza. Long, B. O. 1991. 2 Kings. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Lopasso, V. 2010. “Il tempio, la città santa e i sacerdoti nel libro di Geremia.” LA 60: 17–35. Loretz, O. 1994. “Gottes Thron in Tempel und Himmel nach Psalm 11: Von der altorientalischen zur biblischen Tempeltheologie.” Ugarit-Forschungen 26: 245–270. Lowery, R. H. 1991. The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Lumby, J. R. 1909. The First and Second Books of the Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lundbom, J. R. 1999. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday. –. 2004a. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday. –. 2004b. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21C. New York: Doubleday. Lundquist, J. M. 2000. “New Light on the Temple Ideology.” East and West 50 (1): 9–42. –. 2008. The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present, and Future. Westport, CT: Praeger. Lust, J. 2012. “Solomon’s Temple According to 1 Kings 6,3–14 in Hebrew and in Greek.” In Ausloos, Lemmelijn, and Trebolle Barrera 2012, 265–274. Maier, J. 1985. The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation & Commentary. Sheffield, UK: JSOT. Malamat, A. 2001. History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 7. Leiden: Brill. Maré, L. P. 2010. “The Theophany Report in Psalm 18 as Expression of an Alternative Reality.” Journal for Semitics 19 (1): 98–112.

230

Bibliography

Markschies, C. 2013. “Die Septuaginta als Bibel der Kirche? Beobachtungen aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.” In Die Göttinger Septuaginta: Ein editorisches Jahrhundertprojekt, edited by R. G. Kratz and B. Neuschäfer, 135–154. Berlin: De Gruyter. Martin, E. L. 2000. The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot. Portland, OR: ASK Publications. Matsushima, E. 1993. “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashoning and Clothing and their Interaction with the Society.” In Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life, Held at the Middle Eastern Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992, edited by E. Matsushima, 209–219. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Mayes, A. D. H. 2011. “Pharaoh Shishak’s Invasion of Palestine and the Exodus from Egypt.” In Between Evidence and Ideology: Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Werkgezelschap, Lincoln, July 2009, edited by B. Becking and L. L. Grabbe, 129–144. Leiden: Brill. Mazar, A. 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile. Qedem 12, 20. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. –. 1997. “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein.” Levant 29: 157–165. Mazar, E. 2002. The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations. Jerusalem: The Old City Press. –. 2003. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem, 1968–1978, directed by Benjamin Mazar. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. –. 2009. The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David. Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007. Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication. Mazzoni, S. 2010. “Syro-Hittite Temples and the Traditional in antis Plan.” In Kulturlandschaft Syrien: Zentrum und Peripherie: Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer, edited by J. Becker, R. Hempelmann, and E. Rehm, 359–376. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. –. 2012. “Temples at Tell ʿĀfīṣ in Iron Age I–III.” In Kamlah and Michelau 2012, 23–40. McCormick, C. M. 2002. Palace and Temple: A Study of Architectural and Verbal Icons. BZAW 313. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. McKane, W. F. B. A. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. –. 1996. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. McKay, J. W. 1973. Religion in Judah under the Assyrians, 732–609 BC. Studies in Biblical Theology 26. Naperville, IL: A. R. Allenson. McKenzie, S. L., and T. Römer. 2000. Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Mettinger, T. N. D. 1982. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Lund: CWK Gleerup. –. 1995. No Graven Image?: Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. –. 2006. “A Conversation with My Critics: Cultic Image or Aniconism in the First Temple.” In Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman, edited by Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, O. Lipschitz, and N. Na’aman, 273–296. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Meyers, C. L. 1983. “Jachin and Boaz in Religious and Political Perspective.” CBQ 45: 167– 178. –. 1992. “Temple, Jerusalem.” ABD 6:350–369.

Bibliography

231

Michel, D. 1977. Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Mierse, W. E. 2012. Temples and Sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age Levant: Recovery after Collapse. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Milgrom, J. 1964. “Did Isaiah Prophesy during the Reign of Uzziah?” VT 14: 164–182. Millard, A. R. 2014. “The New Jerusalem Inscription – So What?” BAR 40 (3): 49–53. Mills, M. E. 2012. Urban Imagination in Biblical Prophecy. LHBOTS 560. New York, NY: T. & T. Clark. Möhlenbrink, K. 1932. Der Tempel Salomos: Eine Untersuchung seiner Stellung in der Sakralarchitektur des alten Orients. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Monroe, L. A. S. 2011. Josiah’s Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement: Israelite Rites of Violence and the Making of a Biblical Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Monson, J. 2000. “The New ‘Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel.” BAR 26 (3): 20–35. Montgomery, J. A. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by H. S. Gehman. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Morrison, T. 2011. Isaac Newton’s Temple of Solomon and His Reconstruction of Sacred Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser. Moscati, S. 1988. I Fenici. Milano: Bompiani. Mulder, M. J. 1982. “Was war die am Tempel gebaute ‘Sabbathalle’ in II Kön. 16,18?” In Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J. P. M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979, edited by W. C. Delsman, J. T. Nelis, and J. R. T. M. Peters, 161–172. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer. –. 1998. 1 Kings, vol. 1. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters. Müller, H.-P. 1980. “chākham; chākhām; chokmāh; chokhmōth.” TDOT 4:364–385. Murphy, G. R. 2013. Tree of Salvation: Yggdrasil and the Cross in the North. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers, J. M. 1965. II Chronicles. AB 13. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Na’aman, N. 1995a. “The Debated Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archaeological Research.” ZAW 107: 179–195. –. 1995b. “Tiglath-pileser III’s Campaigns against Tyre and Israel (734–732 B.C.E.).” TA 22: 268–278. –. 1996. “The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of YHWH Where Women Weave Coverings for Asherah (2 Kings 23, 7).” BN 83: 17–18. –. 1998. “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah.” VT 48: 333–49. –. 2003. “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.” BASOR 304: 17–27. –. 2007. “When and How Did Jerusalem Become a Great City? The Rise of Jerusalem as Judah’s Premier City in the Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E.” BASOR 347: 21–56. –. 2012. “Five Notes on Jerusalem in the First and Second Temple Periods “ TA 39: 93–101. –. 2014. “The Interchange between Bible and Archaeology: The Case of David’s Palace and the Milo.” BAR 40 (1): 57–61. Nahkola, A. 2001. Double Narratives in the Old Testament: The Foundations of Method in Biblical Criticism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Nelson, R. D. First and Second Kings. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987. Nicholson, E. 2012. “Once Again Josiah and the Priests of the High Places (II Reg 23,8a.9).” ZAW 124: 356–368. Nobile, M. 2010. 1–2 Re. Milan: Paoline.

232

Bibliography

Noth, M. 1968. Könige: I. Teilband. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Novák, M. 2012. “The Temple of ʿAin Dāra in the Context of Imperial and Neo-Hittite Architecture and Art.” In Kamlah and Michelau 2012, 41–54. –. 2014. “Architecture.” In The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria, edited by H. Niehr, 255–270. Leiden: Brill. Novotny, J. R. 2010. “Temple Building in Assyria.” In Boda and Novotny 2010, 109–139. Oates, J. 1988. Babylon. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Oded, B. 1972. “The Historical Background of the Syro-Ephraimite War Reconsidered.” CBQ 34: 153–165. O’Hare, D. M. 2010. “Have you seen, Son of Man?”: A Study in the Translation and ‘Vorlage’ of LXX Ezekiel 40–48. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Ohm, A. T. 2010. “Manasseh and the Punishment Narrative.” Tyndale Bulletin 61: 237–254. Oppenheim, A. L. 1947. “A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East.” JNES 6 (2): 116–120. Orlinsky, H. M. 1939. “Ḥāṣēr in the Old Testament.” JAOS 59: 22–37. Otto, E. 2006. “šaʿar.” TDOT 15:359–405. Ottosson, M. 1980. Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Upsala: Boreas. Ouellette, J. 1969. “Le vestibule du temple de Salomon était-il un Bit Ḫilâni?” RB 76: 365–378. –. 1972. “The yāṣīaʿ and the ṣelāʿōt: Two Mysterious Structures in Solomon’s Temple.” JNES 31: 187–191. –. 1976. “The Basic Structure of Solomon’s Temple and Archaeological Research.” In The Temple of Solomon: Archaeological Fact and Medieval Tradition in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art, edited by J. Gutmann, 1–20. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Palmer, M. 1965. “The Cardinal Points in Psalm 48.” Biblica 46: 357–358. Park, S. J. 2010. “Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah.” UF 42: 526–533. Parker, B. J. 2002. “The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project: A Final Report from the 1999 Field Season.” Anatolian Studies 52: 19–74. Parker, S. B., and M. S. Smith. 1997. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Parrot, A. 1954. Le temple de Jérusalem. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé. –. 1957. The Temple of Jerusalem. London: SCM Press. Patrich, J. 2009. “538 BCE–70 BCE: The Temple (Beyt Ha-Miqdash) and Its Mount.” In Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, edited by O. Grabar and B. Z. Kedar, 37–71. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press; Austin: University of Texas Press. –. 2011. “The Location of the Second Temple and the Layout of its Courts, Gates, and Chambers: A New Proposal.” In Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City, edited by K. Galor and G. Avni, 205–229. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Perles, F. 1927. “Übersehenes akkadisches Sprachgut im Alten Testament.” AfO 4: 218–220. Perry, E. 2012. “The Same, But Different: The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus through Time.” In Architecture of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to Byzantium, edited by B. D. Wescoat and R. G. Ousterhout, 175–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, F. E. 1985. Jerusalem: The Holy City in the Eyes of Chroniclers, Visitors, Pilgrims, and Prophets from the Days of Abraham to the Beginnings of Modern Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Petit, T. 2011. Oedipe et le chérubin: Les sphinx levantins, cypriotes et grecs comme gardiens d’immortalité. OBO 248. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pettey, R. J. 1990. Asherah: Goddess of Israel, Theology and Religion. New York: Peter Lang. Pietsch, M. 2010. “Prophetess of Doom: Hermeneutical Reflections on the Huldah Oracle (2 Kings 22).” In Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship, edited by M. Leuchter and K.-P. Adam, 71–80. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Bibliography

233

–. 2013. Die Kultreform Josias: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte Israels in der späten Königszeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Pitard, W. T. 2010. “Temple Building in Northwest Semitic Literature of the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.” In Boda and Novotny 2010, 91–108. Pitcher, L. 2009. Writing Ancient History: An Introduction to Classical Historiography. London: I. B. Tauris. Potts, D. T. 2010. “Elamite Temple Building.” In Boda and Novotny 2010, 49–70. Prestel, J. 1902. Die Baugeschichte des jüdischen Heiligthums und der Tempel Salomons. Strassburg: J. H. E. Heitz. Provan, I. W. 1997. 1 & 2 Kings. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Ravasi, G. 1985a. Il Libro dei Salmi I° (1–50): Commento e attualizzione. Bologna: EDB. –. 1985b. Il Libro dei Salmi II° (51–100): Commento e attualizzione. Bologna: EDB. Reade, J. 2005. “The Ishtar Temple at Nineveh.” Iraq 67: 347–390. Reich, R. 2004. The City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society. –. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Reich, R., and E. Shukron. 2008. “A Fragmentary Palaeo-Hebrew Inscription from the City of David, Jerusalem.” IEJ 58: 48–50. Reich, R., E. Shukron, and O. Lernau. 2007. “Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem.” IEJ 57: 153–169. Rendtorff, R. 1967. Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alten Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Reventlow, H. G. 1969. “Gattung und Überlieferung in der »Tempelrede Jeremias«, Jer 27 und 26.” ZAW 81: 315–352. Roberts, J. J. M. 2009. “Temple, Jerusalem.” NIDB 5:494–509. Robker, J. M. 2012. The Jehu Revolution: A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications. Berlin: De Gruyter. Römer, T. 2003. “Une seule maison pour le Dieu unique? La centralisation du culte dans le Deutéronome et dans l’historiographie deutéronomiste.” In Quelle maison pour Dieu?, edited by C. Focant, 49–80. Paris: Cerf. Rosenfeld, A., S. Ilani, H. R. Feldman, W. E. Krumbein, and J. Kronfeld. 2009. “Archaeometric Evidence for the Authenticity of the Jehoash Inscription Tablet.” Antiguo Oriente 7: 57–73. Rupprecht, K. 1972. “Nachrichten von Erweiterung und Renovierung des Tempels in 1. Könige 6.” ZDPV 88: 38–52. –. 1977. Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sack, R. H. 1977. “Some Remarks on Sin-Iddina and Zērija, qīpu, and šatammu of Eanna in Erech … 562–56 B.C.” ZA 66: 280–291. –. 1995. “Royal and Temple Officials in Eanna and Uruk in the Chaldean Period.” In Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, edited by O. Loretz and M. Dietrich, 425–432. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Saldarini, A. J., and D. J. Harrington. 1987. Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Salignac Fénelon, F. o. L. V. 1904. L’Arche, le Tabernacle et le Temple de Jerusalem. Paris: A. Gentil.

234

Bibliography

Šanda, A. 1911. Das Erste Buch der Könige. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9.1. Münster: Aschendorff. –. 1912. Das Zweite Buch der Könige. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9.2. Münster: Aschendorff. Schaudig, H. 2010. “The Restoration of Temples in the Neo- and Late Babylonian Periods: A Royal Prerogative as the Setting for Political Argument.” In Boda and Novotny 2010, 141–164. Schenker, A. 2004. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als Älteste Textform der Königsbücher. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. –. 2010. “The Septuagint in the Text History of 1‒2 Kings.” In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception, edited by A. Lemaire, B. Halpern, and M. J. Adams, 3–17. Leiden: Brill. –. 2011. Anfänge der Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Studien zu Entstehung und Verhältnis der frühesten Textformen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. –. 2012. “What Do Scribes, and What Do Editors Do? The Hebrew Text of the Masoretes, the Old Greek Bible and the Alexandrian Philological Ekdoseis of the 4th and 3rd Centuries B.C., Illustrated by the Example of 2 Kings 1.” In Ausloos, Lemmelijn, and Trebolle Barrera 2012, 275–293. Schipper, J. 2010. “Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Dynastic or Transgenerational Punishment.” In Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship, edited by M. Leuchter and K.-P. Adam, 81–105. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Schlögl, P. N. 1911. Die Bücher der Könige (Drittes und Viertes, Hebr. Erstes und Zweites). Vienna: Mayer. Schmitt, A. W. 2012. Die Jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel und der Nabû-Tempel in Assur: Architektur, Stratigraphie und Funde. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schniedewind, W. M. 1991. “The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily.” VT 41: 450–461. –. 1993. “History and Interpretation: The Religion of Ahab and Manasseh in the Book of Kings.” CBQ 55: 649–661. –. 2010. “Excavating the Text of 1 Kings 9.” In Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, edited by T. E. Levy, 241–249. London: Equinox. Schulte, H. 1994. “The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence.” Semeia 66: 133–148. Schweitzer, S. J. 2007. Reading Utopia in Chronicles. LHBOTS 442. New York: T. & T. Clark International. –. 2011. “The Temple in Samuel‒Kings and Chronicles.” In Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes, edited by H. van Grol and J. Corley, 123–138. Berlin: De Gruyter. Sedlmeier, F. 2002. Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–21. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Shiffman, L. H. 2011. “The Temple Scroll: A Utopian Plan for Second Temple Times.” In The Temple of Jerusalem: From Moses to the Messiah: In Honor of Professor Louis H. Feldman, edited by S. Fine, 45–56. Leiden: Brill. Shiloh, Y. 1979. The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. –. 1984. Excavations at the City of David I: 1978–1982 Interim Report of the First Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology. Simian-Yofre, H. 2001. “pānîm.” TDOT 11:589–615.

Bibliography

235

Ska, J. L. 1990. “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico. Smelik, K. A. D. 1997. “The New Altar of King Ahaz (2 Kings 16): Deuteronomistic Re-interpretation of a Cult Reform.” In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, edited by C. H. W. Brekelmans and J. Lust, 263–278. Leuven: Peeters. –. 1998. “The Representation of King Ahaz in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28.” In Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of The Society for Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België held at Oxford, 1997, edited by J. C. de Moor, 143–185. Leiden: Brill. Smith, G. A. 1907. Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, vol. 1. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Smith, J. Z. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, M. S. 2001. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press. –. 2006. “In Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6–7): Between Text and Archaeology.” In Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, edited by S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel, 275–282. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2008. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Soggin, J. A. 1970. “Das Erdbeben von Amos 1:1 und die Chronologie der Könige Ussia und Jotham von judah.” ZAW 82: 117–121. –. 2002. Storia d’Israele: Introduzione alla storia d’Israele e Giuda dalle origini alla rivolta di Bar Kochbà. 2nd ed. Brescia: Paideia. Solvang, E. K. 2003. A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their Involvement in the House of David. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Sonnet, J.-P. 1994. “Le livre ‘trouvé.’ 2 Rois 22 dans sa finalité narrative.” NRT 116: 836–861. –. 2003. “Salomon construit le Temple (1 Rois 5–10).” In Quelle maison pour Dieu?, edited by C. Focant, 111–142. Paris: Cerf. –. 2008. “Côté cour, côté jardin.” In Le roi Salomon: Un héritage en question, edited by C. Lichtert and D. Nocquet, 247–260. Bruxelles: Lessius. Spanier, K. 1998. “The Northern Israelite Queen Mother in the Judean Court: Athalia and Abi.” In Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, edited by M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb, and S. Keller, 136–149. Sheffield, UK: Academic Press. Spencer, N., D. Rosenow, and the British Museum. 2006. A Naos of Nekhthorheb from Bubastis: Religious Iconography and Temple Building in the 30th Dynasty. London: British Museum. Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Sprank, S., and K. Wiese. 1926. Studien zu Ezechiel und dem Buch der Richter. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Stade, B., and F. Schwally. 1904. The Books of Kings: Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text, The Sacred Books of the Old Testament: A Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text Printed in Colors, with Notes. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Stager, L. E. 1982. “The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron.” JNES 41: 111–121. –. 1985. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260: 1–35. –. 1999. “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden.” EI 26: 183*–194*.

236

Bibliography

Stager, L. E., and S. R. Wolff. 1981. “Production and Commerce in Temple Courtyards: An Olive Press in the Sacred Precinct at Tel Dan.” BASOR 243: 95–101. Stähli, H.-P. 1985. Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments. OBO 66. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Stavrakopoulou, F. 2004. King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Stern, E. 1990. “Schumacher’s Shrine in Building 338 at Megiddo: A Rejoinder.” IEJ 40 (2–3): 102–107. Stern, E., and A. Mazar. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 BCE. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday. Stevens, M. E. 2006. Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient Israel. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Stipp, H.-J. 2009. Alttestamentliche Studien: Arbeiten zu Priesterschrift, Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Prophetie. BZAW 442. Berlin: De Gruyter. Strange, J. 1985. “The Idea of Afterlife in Ancient Israel: Some Remarks on the Iconography in Solomon’s Temple.” PEQ 117: 35–40. Swanson, K. A. 2002. “A Reassessment of Hezekiah’s Reform in Light of Jar Handles and Iconographic Evidence.” CBQ 64: 460–469. Sweeney, M. A. 2001. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. –. 2007. I & II Kings. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Sweitzer, S. J. 2011. “The Temple in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.” In Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes, edited by J. Corley and H. v. Grol, 123–138. Berlin: De Gruyter. Tate, M. E. 1990. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Thareani-Sussely, Y. 2007. “The ‘Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh’ Reconsidered in the Light of Evidence from The Beersheba Valley.” PEQ 139 (2): 69–77. Thenius, O. 1873. Die Bücher der Könige. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Thompson, D. A. 1954. Jerusalem and Its Temples in Bible History and Prophecy (Illustrated by Pictures of Unique Models). Sussex: Bognor Regis. Thompson, T. L. 2013. Biblical Narrative and Palestine’s History. Sheffield, UK: Equinox. Tiemeyer, L.-S. 2009. “The Priests and the Temple Cult in the Book of Jeremiah.” In Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, edited by H. M. Barstad and R. G. Kratz, 233–264. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Tiňo, J. 2010. King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach to Their Relations. FRLANT 234. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Torijano Morales, P. 2012. “Textual Criticism and the Text-Critical Edition of IV Regnorum: The Case of 17,2–6.” In Ausloos, Lemmelijn, and Trebolle Barrera 2012, 195–212. Trebolle Barrera, J. C. 2012. “Textual Pluralism and Composition of the Books of Kings: 2 Kings 17,2–23: MT, LXXB, LXXL, OL.” In Ausloos, Lemmelijn, and Trebolle Barrera 2012, 213–226. Tuell, S. S. 1992. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Tushingham, A. D. 1985. Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vol. 1. Toronto: ROM. Ussishkin, D. 1973. “King Solomon’s Palaces.” BA 36: 78–105. –. 1978. “Excavations at Tel Lachish – 1973–1977 Preliminary Report.” TA 1–2: 1–97. –. 1983. “Excavations at Tel Lachish 1978–1983: Second Preliminary Report.” TA 2: 97–175.

Bibliography

237

–. 1995. “The Water System of Jerusalem during Hezekiah’s Reign.” In Meilenstein: Festgabe für Herbert Donner zum 16. Februar 1995, edited by M. Weippert and S. Timm, 289–307. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. –. 2003. “Jerusalem as a Royal and Cultic Center in the 10th–8th Centuries B.C.E.” In Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, edited by W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, 529–538. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2009. “The Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the First Temple Period: An Archaeologist’s View.” In Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by J. D. Schloen, 473–483. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Uziel, J., and I. Shai. 2007. “Iron Age Jerusalem: Temple-Palace, Capital City.” JAOS 127: 161–170. van Beek, G., and O. van Beek. “Canaanite-Phoenician Architecture: The Development and Distribution of Two Styles.” EI 15: 70*–77*. van der Toorn, K. 1997. The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Leuven: Peeters. van Driel, G. 1969. The Cult of Assur. Assen: Van Gorcum. Vanhemelryck, F. 2011. La tente, le Temple, er le Palais. Brussels: EME. van Keulen, P. S. F. 2005. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11. SVT 104. Leiden: Brill. Van Seters, J. 1997. “Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography.” CBQ 59: 45–57. –. 2011. Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History, Literature, and Religion of Biblical Israel. London: Equinox. Vaughan, A. G. 1999. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Vaughn, A. G., and A. E. Killebrew, eds. 2003. Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Vincent, P. L.-H., and P. A.-M. Steve. 1956. Jérusalem de l’Ancien Testament: Recherches d’archéologie et d’histoire, vol. 2. Paris: J. Gabalda. Walsh, J. T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Waterman, L. 1943. “The Damaged ‘Blueprints’ of the Temple of Solomon.” JNES 2: 284–294. Watson, W. G. E. 1984. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, Dept. of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield. Weippert, H. 1970. “Jahwekrieg und Bundesfluch in Jer 21:1–7.” ZAW 82: 396–409. Weiser, A. 1962. The Psalms: A Commentary. London: SCM. Welten, P. 1972. “Kulthöhe und Jahwetempel.” ZDPV 88: 19–37. Wetzel, F., and F. H. Weissbach. 1938. Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon, Esagila und Etemenanki. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Wightman, G. J. 2006. Sacred Spaces: Religious Architecture in the Ancient World. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 22. Leuven: Peeters. Wilber, K. 2000. A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala. Wilkinson, R. H. 2000. The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames and Hudson. Willi, T. 1972. Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Williamson, H. G. M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

238

Bibliography

–. 1991. “The Temple in the Books of Chronicles.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by W. Horbury, 15–31. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press; ; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. –. 1996. “Hezekiah and the Temple.” In Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, edited by M. V. Fox, 47–52. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. –. 2007. Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Winter, I. 1976. “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of Style and Distribution.” Iraq 38: 1–22. –. 1981. “Is There a South Syrian Style of Ivory Carving in the Early First Millennium B.C.?” Iraq 43: 101–130. Wissmann, F. B. 2008. “Er tat das Rechte …”: Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12–2Kön 25. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Woodman, A. J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies. London: Croom Helm; Portland, OR: Areopagitica Press. Würthwein, E. 1977. Das Erste Buch der Könige: Kapitel 1–16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. –. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Yadin, Y. 1977. The Temple Scroll. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. Yadin, Y., et al. 1960. Hazor II: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Yeivin, S. 1964. “Was There a High Portal in the First Temple?” VT 14: 331–343. Zamora García, P. 2011. Reyes I: La fuerza de la narración. Estella: Verbo Divino. Zawadzki, S. 2006. Garments of the Gods: Studies on the Textile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar according to the Texts from the Ebabbar Archive. OBO 218. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Zenger, E. 1996. A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Zevit, Z. 2002. “Preamble to a Temple Tour.” In Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, edited by B. M. Gittlen, 73–81. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Zimmerli, W. 1969. Ezechiel, vol. 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. –. 1979. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Philadelphia: Fortress. –. 1983. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Philadelphia: Fortress. Zlotowitz, B. M., and M. S. Rozenberg. 1999. The Book of Psalms: A New Translation and Commentary. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Zukerman, A. 2012. “A Re-analysis of the Iron Age IIA Cult Place at Lachish.” ANES 49 (1): 24–60. Zwickel, W. 1990. Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte: Exegetische und archäologische Studien zum Räucheropfer im Alten Testament. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. –. 1999. Der salomonische Tempel. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 83. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. –. 2002. “Zur Symbolik der Phlanzen im Salomonischen Tempel.” In Das Kleid der Erde: Pflanzen in der Lebenswelt des alten Israel, edited by P. Riede and U. Neumann-Gorsolke, 194–221. Stuttgart: Calwer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. –. 2007. “Der Hörnealtar auf Siegeln aus Pälestina/Israel.” In Bilder als Quellen = Images as Sources: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work of Othmar Keel, edited by S. Bickel, S. Schoer, R. Schurte, and C. Uehlinger, 269–292. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Bibliography

239

–. 2010a. “Clay and Stone Altars and a Piece of Mortar.” In Yavneh I: The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands, edited by R. Kletter, I. Ziffer, and W. Zwickel, 105–109. Fribourg: Academic Press. –. 2010b. “Priesthood and the Development of Cult in the Books of Kings.” In The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception, edited by A. Lemaire, B. Halpern, and M. J. Adams, 401–426. Leiden: Brill.

Index of References Old Testament Genesis 6:14 170, 171n269 6:16 137 6:22 60n157 9:22 75n234 10:9 119 18:1 75, 94 18:11 92 19:11 92 23:19 158 31:57 75n234 47:21 168n258 49:4 126 Exodus 13:18 64n180 20:25 175, 176, 180+n305 24:9–11 42 25 114n18 25:11 170, 171n269 25:15 113n12 26:2 201n364 26:8 201n364 26:31 155 26:33 116, 155, 170 26:34 113n12 27:21 155 29:25 119 30:6 155 36:4 38 36:9 201n364 36:15 201n364 37:2 171n269 38:16 168 38:30 57 39:22 60n157 39:39 57

40:16 60n157 Leviticus 3–7 55 4:6 155 8 55 16:2 155, 170 14:41 171n269 16:12 170 16:14 157n213 16:15 170 23 55 Numbers 1:54 60n157 2:24 137 2:34 60n157 3:4 158 28 55 Deuteronomy 12 58 13:8 168n258 17:20 76 24:4 119 27:5 176, 180n306 27:5–6 175 28:12 42 28:64 168n258 30:4 168n258 Joshua 6:11 64n180 6:19 42 6:24 42 8:31 175, 176, 180n306 13:25 157n214

242

Index of References

19:11 157n214 Judges 1:24–25 67 18:23 64n182 1 Samuel 1:7 120 1:9 89n298, 120 1:24 120 2:22b 120n47 3:3 89n298, 120+n48 3:15 120 3:21 168n258 4:18 87n285 5:8–10 65n184 19:21 137 2 Samuel 3:12 64n182 3:27 87n285 4:12 44n80 5:23 64n180 7:7 184 12:30 180 15:18 158 18:24 87n285 19:1 166 19:9 87n285 20:12 65n184 22 122n66, 123n70 22:7 120+n50, 122 24 141 1 Kings 1–11 1 3:28 60 5–8 141, 174 5:15–32 38 5:29 38 5:30 38 5:31 175n286, 180+n305, 181, 182 5:32 38 6 128, 129, 135, 144n142, 147, 154, 161, 166, 168, 178 6–7 2, 5n20, 125, 144, 149, 160

6–8

5–6, 8, 9, 48, 51, 52, 66, 67, 90, 94, 97, 98, 100n340, 110–111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 149, 150, 151, 175, 186n329, 193, 196, 199, 207, 208, 209, 210, 213, 214, 216 6:1 120, 135 6:1–38 182 6:2 118, 161, 164, 166 6:2–8 136 6:3 13, 115, 118, 124, 144, 146, 147, 148, 151, 156–160 6:4 12, 146 6:4–5 172n273 6:5 118, 124, 125, 126, 128, 132–134, 135, 141, 168, 191n348 6:5a 126, 127, 128, 130, 136+n11, 139, 140, 142 6:5b 126, 127, 128, 130, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143 6:5–6 87n287, 126 6:5–8 136, 141 6:5–10 125+n75, 126–131, 132, 135–140, 168, 169 6:5b–6 137–139 6:5b–8 143 6:5b–9 137 6:6 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 135, 139, 141, 168 6:6a 139, 143 6:6b–7 140n122 6:7 126, 129, 135, 139, 175–176+n286, 183n311 6:8 126, 127, 128, 130, 135, 136, 137–139, 140, 142, 143, 168 6:9 12, 13, 119n40, 126, 129, 135, 164, 165, 177, 180 6:9a 135, 136, 139, 140n122 6:9a–14 136 6:9b 135, 136, 139 6:10 126, 127, 128, 130, 135, 136+n11, 138, 139, 141, 142, 178, 180

Index of References 6:10a 136, 140, 142 6:10b 177 6:10c 179 6:11–13 118, 119+n40, 123, 124, 135 6:14 12, 119n40, 135, 136 6:15 143, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171n269, 176–177, 178+ n299, 179, 180, 189, 190 6:15a 164–165, 179 6:15b 179 6:15–20 207 6:15–22 118, 166, 172, 176, 206 6:16 114n19, 116, 119n40, 143, 174, 177, 180 6:16a 167–169, 170, 171, 173, 191n348 6:16b 167, 169–172, 173, 191n348 6:16–20 167 6:17 117, 118, 173, 191n348 6:17a 119 6:17b 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 125 6:18 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 187, 188+n334, 191+n348 6:18b 188 6:18–19 117 6:19 173, 191n348 6:19–20 173n278, 174 6:20 117, 118, 173, 177, 180, 189, 190, 191n348 6:20c 190 6:20–22 202 6:21 189, 191n348 6:21a 189, 190 6:21b 189, 190, 191 6:22 189, 190, 191n348 6:22a 189 6:23 112, 115, 116, 197, 202, 203, 204 6:23a 197, 198, 199 6:23b 197, 198, 199, 200 6:23–24 197–198, 199, 200, 204, 205, 206 6:23–25 204 6:23–27 201

243

6:23–28 173, 189, 193–206 6:24 202, 203 6:24a 200 6:24b 200 6:24c 197, 200 6:25 198, 202, 204 6:25a 201 6:25b 201 6:25–26 201 6:25b–26 199 6:25–27 198, 199, 201–202, 204, 205, 206 6:25–28 198 6:26 197, 198, 199, 201 6:26–28 204 6:27 63, 112, 115, 116, 199, 201, 204, 205 6:27a 204 6:28 189, 190, 198, 199, 202, 205, 206 6:29 179n301, 187, 188, 191 6:29–35 161 6:29–36 161 6:30 189, 190, 202 6:31 94 6:31–33 124 6:31–34 189 6:32 187, 188, 189, 190, 202 6:32a 187, 188, 189, 192 6:32b 187, 188, 191, 192 6:32–33 161 6:33 94, 118 6:35 187, 188, 189, 190, 192n350, 202 6:35b 190n342 6:36 89nn295.296, 97n332, 112, 153n201, 155–156, 180nn303.305, 181 6:37 120, 182 6:38 90, 135 7 153 7:1–8 182 7:3 151n189 7:6 157n215 7:6a 151 7:6b 152+n197 7:6–8 150 7:6–21 152 7:7 152

244 7:8

Index of References

97n332, 151+n190, 170, 192 7:9 97n332, 170, 171n269, 180+n305, 181, 182 7:9–12 181, 182 7:10 181 7:11 180+n305 7:12 97n332, 112, 120, 151, 152, 153+n201, 154, 161, 180n305, 182 7:12b 153, 154, 182 7:13–50 182 7:14 38 7:15–16 150n178 7:15–21 50 7:15–22 13, 154, 155 7:19 151, 154, 161 7:21 118, 124, 151, 154, 161 7:27–37 61n163 7:31 170 7:37 201+n364 7:40–50 42 7:41–50 78n240 7:42 157 7:48 114 7:48–50 42 7:48–51 202 7:50 63, 112, 114n18, 115, 116, 118, 123n73, 169–170, 170, 189 7:50b 113, 114 7:51 42n69 8 1, 55 8:6 112, 115, 116, 170, 172 8:6–7 204 8:6–8 193 8:6–9 204, 205 8:8 113, 116n25, 157 8:10 116n25 8:12–13 204n366 8:14 64n182 8:27–31 124 8:62–64 59 8:64 55, 58, 97n332 9:23 38 10:2 180 11 48 12–14 48 12:2 60

12:21–24 33 14:25–28 45, 46 14:28 101 15 48 15:12 116n25 15:12–13 48, 71 15:13 70, 71n211 15:15 42, 44n78, 116n25 15:16–22 33 15:17–21 43 15:19 54n128 16:15–28 49n102 17:19 166 17:23 166 18 103 18:37 64n182 19:6 61 20 33 21:4 64n182 22:10 82, 87n285 2 Kings 1:13 137+n117 4:29 158 4:31 158 4:39 188n334 6:30 171n269 8:18 48n99 8:26 48n99 9:37 157n213 11 34n27, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 82, 83 11–12 58, 98, 104n347 11–14 34 11:3 51+n118 11:3a 49, 51 11:4 51 11:4aβ 49 11:4bα 49 11:6 83, 98n334 11:6–7 51 11:7 49 11:8 52, 164 11:10 42 11:11 58n148 11:11a 49 11:11–12 51 11:12 58n148 11:13 51

Index of References 11:13b 49 11:14 50, 51, 67n199 11:15 164, 170 11:15b 51 11:16 67+n198 11:17–20 49 11:19 83+n260 11:19a 49 12 26n76, 37+n46, 38, 39, 48, 77, 98n337, 100 12–24 140 12:4–16 42 12:5–17 32–38 12:6 36, 37 12:7 27, 37 12:8a 37 12:8b 36 12:9 37 12:12 38 12:13 37, 184 12:13a 37 12:13b 37 12:15 37 12:18–19 43 12:19 42n69, 46 14:8–14 33, 46 14:13 46 14:14 46 15 82 15:3 56 15:9 56 15:18 56 15:24 56 15:32–38 83–84 15:35 13, 83, 93, 95n330, 98n334 16 48, 53, 54+n128, 55, 56– 59, 60n158, 67, 68, 100 16:2 56 16:2–4 54 16:5–9 33, 43, 53 16:8 60 16:10–11 55n132, 92 16:10–16 53, 54+n130, 55, 58, 60+n157 16:10–18 53 16:12 57n141 16:12–15 56 16:13 56, 57n141, 59

245

16:13–15 57n142 16:14 13, 56, 57+n144, 58 16:14c 57n141 16:15 56, 57n141, 59 16:15d 57 16:16 60n157 16:17 60n157, 61, 64, 66+n191, 67n195, 69 16:17–18 43, 53, 60, 213 16:18 62, 63, 63–64, 64+n177, 66+n191, 67+n195, 68, 69, 97n332, 98, 100 17 73 18–19 33, 48, 70+n206 18–20 77 18–23 70 18–25 96 18:1–5 77 18:3 76, 77 18:4 44n77, 58n152, 70–71 18:5 77 18:13–15 44 18:14–16 43 18:15 44n80, 45n81 18:16 13, 42, 43–44, 44n80, 45, 46, 61, 100, 120, 186, 190, 192 18:22 58, 70, 92 20:2 64n182 20:4 63, 89n295, 97n332 20:13 41 21 48 21:1 72 21:1–18 72n215 21:2 56, 72, 74 21:2–9 72n215, 74 21:2–16 72 21:3 71n210, 72, 74, 75 21:3a 78 21:3b 74 21:3–7 72, 74–75 21:4 74 21:4a 74, 75, 78 21:4b 74 21:4–5 54, 74 21:4–7 72 21:5 74, 75, 78+n242, 88n295, 95n331, 97n332 21:6 74, 78n242

246

Index of References

21:6a 78 21:6b 74 21:6–9 74 21:7 71 21:7a 74, 78 21:7b 74 21:7c–9 74 21:9 74 21:13 72 21:17–18 72 21:20 56, 74 21:21a 74 21:21b 74 22 37+n46, 38, 39, 100 22–23 34+n27, 48, 51, 77, 81, 82 22:1 77 22:2 76, 77 22:3 77 22:3–7 34 22:3–10 32–38, 76, 77 22:3–23:24 77 22:4–7 51 22:5 27, 35, 36, 37 22:6 37, 38, 184 22:9 34 22:11 77+n238 22:11–20 77 22:11–23:24 77 22:14 50n106, 51, 106 22:17–20 73 23:1–3 77 23:1–24 76 23:2 51 23:3 50, 51 23:4 31n12, 71, 78+n242, 100, 120 23:4–24 76, 77 23:5 78, 79 23:6 71 23:6–7 78, 79–80 23:7 75, 79, 99 23:8 67n198, 79 23:8–10 78 23:9 58 23:11 68n201, 80, 87n287, 97n332, 98n336, 99 23:11–12 78 23:12 75, 78n242, 80, 95n331, 97n332

23:13 100 23:15 71n211 23:24–25 76 23:25 76, 77 23:26 73 23:26–27 72, 77 23:27 72 23:28 77 23:32 56 23:33–35 43n73 23:34 65 24–25 46 24:3–4 72 24:11–13 47 24:13 120 24:14 191 24:17 65 25 45 25:4 78, 80, 81, 99 25:13–17 47, 58 25:14–15 42 Isaiah 1:11–15 90 1:12 97n332 2:10–22 40 5:26 168n258 6 58 6:1 100 6:1–2 42 6:3 89n298 6:4 40 6:6 61 8:2 55 8:4 60 9:9 180n305, 181 13:5 168n258 19:8 157n213 20:6 60 22:9–11 106n356 22:16 106n356 23:1 171n269 29:21 87n285 30:6 42 33:6 42 38:2 64n182 41:2 191 41:9 168n258 42:10 168n258

Index of References 42:11 168 43:6 168n258 45:1 191 45:3 42 45:14 201n364 58:12 38 Jeremiah 1:15 85n275 2:12 88n294 7 88+n295, 89 7:2 86, 87, 98n334 7:3 95n329 7:4 85, 89, 100, 115, 120, 124n74 10:13 42 12:12 168n258 14:2 85n275 15:4 72 17:19 85 17:19–27 85n275 19:1–2 85 19:2 85n275 19:13 80–81 19:14 88, 97n332 19:14–15 85 20:2 84, 86, 87, 93, 95n330, 98n334 21:1–7 63 21:4 63+n174, 64n182 22:1–2 85 22:2 85n276 22:4 85n276 22:19 85n275 24:1 120, 124n74 26 86, 88 26:2 85, 88, 97n332 26:10 85, 86, 87 28:1 85, 89 31:38 85n275 31:40 67n198, 83, 85n275 32:2 85, 88n294, 97n332 32:8 88n294, 97n332 32:12 85 32:29 80–81 33:1 85, 88n294 35 87n287 35:1–4 80, 87–88, 99 35:2 87

247

35:4 87+n287, 88 36 88, 99 36:5–6 85 36:10 80, 86, 87, 88, 89+n295, 97n332, 98n334, 99 36:12 88, 99 36:20 85, 88+n294, 97n332 36:21 88, 99 36:22 88 37:13 84n269, 85n275, 86 37:21 85, 88n294 38 67, 68 38:6 85, 88n294 38:7 84n269, 85n275 38:13 85, 88n294 38:14 67, 85, 98 38:28 85, 88n294 39:3 85n275 39:4 85n275 39:14–15 85 42:11 60 51:58 85n275 52:17–23 58 Ezekiel 7:15 171n269 7:22 64n182 8–11 90, 91, 95 8:3 62, 63, 91, 92, 93, 95, 98+n334 8:5 92, 93, 95, 98+n334 8:6 95 8:7 93+n319, 97n332 8:7–13 93 8:9 95 8:12 94, 99 8:14 84, 92, 93, 95+n329, 98+n334 8:16 58, 93–94, 95, 97n332, 100, 145, 149, 163 8:16–18 93 9:2 58+n147, 84, 93, 95, 98n334 9:3 94n323 9:7 95n331 10:3 91, 93 10:3–5 75 10:4 93, 94n323

248

Index of References

10:5 93, 97n332 10:18 94n323 10:19 86, 92, 93, 95, 98n334 11:1 86, 92–93, 93, 95, 98n334 13:5 38 21:20 91n308 21:27 91n308 22:30 38 26:10 91n308 27 37n46 27:9 27, 35, 36, 37 27:27 27, 35, 36, 37 40–46 2, 145 40–47 98 40–48 90, 91+n308, 145, 178, 201n364 40:6–16 145 40:17 129, 131 40:17–19 62n169 40:20–43 145 40:38–43 146 40:42 180+n305 40:44–46 129 40:45 87n287 40:46 87n287 40:48–49 146 40:48–41:4 146n160 41–42 125 41:1 94n324 41:1–4 145 41:4 94n324, 116 41:5 178 41:5–9a 129 41:6 129 41:9–10 129 41:9b–11 129 41:13 146n160 41:15 63n172, 94n324, 115 41:15–26 178 41:17 63, 115 41:20 94n324 41:21 94n324 41:23 94n324 41:25 94n324 41:25b–26 146 41:26 147 42 129 42:1–14 129

42:3 137 42:4 62 42:6 129 42:8 94n324, 157n215 42:9 67n199 42:15 63, 115 43:17 133 44:3 146 44:5 67n199 46:2 146 46:8 146 46:13–15 55 46:19 67+n199 46:19–24 129 46:23 153 47:2 64n180 Joel 2:17

145, 149, 163

Amos 1:1 40, 41, 96 5:10–15 86 5:11 180+n305, 181 7:13 210 9:1–4 40 9:5–6 40 Micah 6:10 42 Haggai 2:18 120 Zechariah 2:5 201n364 14:4 96 14:4–10 40 14:5 40, 41 14:5b 40 14:10 98 Malachi 3:10 43 Psalms 5:8 120, 121, 122 11 122 11:4 120, 121, 122

Index of References 11:6 123 18 122n66, 123n70 18:1 122n66 18:4–7 123n68 18:5–6 122 18:6 122 18:7 120, 121, 122 18:8–16 123n70 18:14 122 18:16 122 18:18–20 123 19:7 168n258 27:4 120, 121 28:2 100n340, 170 29 122, 123n70 29:9 120, 121, 122 39:5 201n364 45:16 120n53 45:18 120n53 48 121 48:5–9 121 48:10 120, 121 48:13–15 121 63:7 126 65:5 120, 121 68 121+n56, 122 68:4 122 68:25–31 121 68:29–30 121 68:29–32 121n58 68:30 120, 121 79:1 120, 121 132:3 126 135:7 42 138:2 120+n53, 121, 122 140:10 64n180 144:2 191 Proverbs 8:21 41 17:1 171n269 Job 17:13 126 26:9 177 38:22 42 Ruth 4 87n285

Song of Songs 6:5 64n182 Lamentations 3:9 180+n305 Daniel 1:2 43 Ezra 1:2–4 154n202 2:63 116 3:6 120n51 3:7 38 3:10 38, 120+n51 4:1 120n51 4:14 120n46 5:14–15 120n46 6:3 164 6:3–5 154n202 6:4 153 6:22 64n182 Nehemiah 1:9 168n258 2:8 38 2:18 37n47 3 37+n46, 201n364 3:3 37 3:6 37 3:13 37 3:14 37 3:15 37 3:19 37n46 3:25 37 3:28 67n198, 83 3:33 37 6:10–11 120n51 6:10–13 51n117 7:65 116 10:33–34 33n18 10:38–40 87n287 10:39 43+n72 13:4–9 87n287 13:11–13 43 1 Chronicles 4:39 67 5:1 126

249

250

Index of References

9:18 98 9:19 67n199 9:26–27 87n287 9:33 87n287 10:14 64n182 12:24 64n182 13:3 65n184 14:1 38 14:14 64n180 17:6 184 22:1–5 182 22:2 38, 180n305 22:4 178 22:15 38 26:16 98 28 149 28:11 147, 148, 166 28:12 87n287 29:2 178 29:5 38 2 Chronicles 1:5–6 57n145 2–7 2 2:1 38 2:8 38 2:15 38 2:17 38 3 172, 182, 196 3–4 120, 125, 153, 178 3–7 100n340 3:1 101n342 3:2 158n221 3:3 164 3:4 146, 147, 148, 158+n221, 159, 162 3:5 158n221 3:5–6 178 3:5–9 116 3:8 158 3:9 158n221, 166 3:10 206 3:10–13 193, 196, 206 3:13 205 3:14 155 3:15 150n178 3:17 154, 157nn215.217 4:1 57+n145 4:9 153

4:13 157 4:22 115 5:1 129 5:9 157 6:3 64n182 7:7 57+n145, 153 8:12 147, 148, 149 9:18 177 11:12 37 13:13 64n180 14:6 64 15:8 147, 148, 149 20:5 153 22:10 51n118 22:11–12 51 23 53 23:3 52n119 23:3–11 52 23:5 52 23:6 51 23:7 52 23:11 52 23:12 52n120 23:13 50, 52n120, 67n199 23:14 52n120, 164 23:15 67+n198 23:19 52 24:7 33n19 24:8 98n337 25:12 168 26:9 37n47 26:16 120 27 84n265 27:2 120n51 28 54n128 28:1 56 28:22–23 55+n132 28:24b 54 29–31 70 29:3 37, 147 29:6 64n182 29:7 147, 148, 149 29:16 120n51 29:16–17 149 29:17 147, 148 29:24 68 31:2 98n337 31:11–12 87n287 32:5 37n47

251

Index of References 32:7 60 33:3–5 54n131 33:11–13 73n219 34:10 35 34:10–11 33n19 34:11 184

34:11–17 54 34:31 50n107 35:22 64n182 36:4 65 36:7 120n46

Ancient Sources Septuagint 3 Kgdms 6 168 6–8 196 6:1–5 181 6:6 166 6:10 177n297 6:10–15 169 6:14 180+n304 6:14–16 180 6:15 180+n304 6:16 165, 180+n304 6:16–21 118, 166, 172 6:16a 179, 183 6:16aα–β 164–165 6:16b 179 6:17 168, 172n275 6:17a 169, 171 6:17b 171 6:17–19 167 6:19 172n275 6:22–23 204 6:22–24 204 6:22–27 173 6:24 204 6:24–27 204 6:25–27 204 6:29 179 6:34 181 6:35 181n307 6:36 155–156, 161 7:36b 113 7:43 152 7:46 181 7:46–49 181 7:49 153

4 Kgdms 16:10–11 55n133 24:4 73 Sir 4:15 171n269 Qumran 4QShirShabf 14 I, 4

67n198

Temple Scroll 11Q 19 IV, 5

129

Targum Jonathan 1 Kgs 6:5–10

130

Josephus Antiquities 3.147 168n259 3.149 168n259 8.65 149 8.65–68 131 8.72 206 8.72–73 193 9.173–185 52n121 9.225 40, 96 Jewish War 5.220 131 Rabbinic Sources b. Baba Batra 61a 126

252

Index of References

m. Middot 4:3 131 4:3–5 131 4:6 149 Egypt Papyrus Amherst 63 18, 1–4a

184

El Amarna Letters 285–290 101n342 Mesopotamia ABC 1 iii 44–45 22 1 iv 17–18 22 14:21–22 22 BIWA 140–141 11n15 268–269, 291 18 CUSAS 17 76, 86

A.0.86.1:8–10 16 RIMA 2 A.0.87.1 vii 60–70 15 A.0.87.12:24ʹ–31ʹ 16 A.0.87.12:28ʹ 16 A.0.91.2:7 17 A.0.91.14–15 17 A.0.98.3:11–12 181n308 A.0.99.2 15 A.0.99.2:130 11n14 A.0.101.31:11–16 17 A.0.101.40:30–37 17 A.0.101.57:3 17 RIMA 3 A.0.102.41:3 186n329 A.0.102.116 17 A.0.104.9 17 RIMB 2 B.6.21.1:3–6

14n31

RINAP 1 8:8–12 60n161 8:10 60

LAS II 265 24n74, 26n77 266 24n75

RINAP 3/1 1:36–62 20 4:57 60n161 15 v 54 29n2 17 vi 23–25 184n317

RIMA 1 A.0.39.1:88–98 14n31 A.0.39.2 i 18 15n39 A.0.39.2 ii 14–20 16 A.0.73.1001 16 A.0.73.1001 ii 1–20 10n9 A.0.76.7:35–39 10n7 A.0.76.15 14 A.0.77.4:37–39 181n308 A.0.77.17:6–9 16 A.0.77.29 16 A.0.78.11:26–28 14 A.0.78.11:52–55 181 A.0.78.11:58–73 10n10 A.0.78.14:9–27 15 A.0.78.34 16

RINAP 4 1 ii 12 19 1 ii 12–24 24n75 1 v 33 186n329 10:1 20n59 10:6–7 10n8 10:6–8 18 12:12–19 23n68 12:17 181n308 12:20 23n69 17:5ʹ 20n59 43:9 20n59 44:1–17 20n59 45 iv 6ʹ–12ʹ 20n59 48 23 48:66–72 47n90

14n31

Index of References 48:72–95 21 48:82–100 20n59 48:95 27 48:96–97 21 48:98–100 20 48:100 21 48 r.80–81 21 48 r.82–86 42n67 51 iv 9 21 54:28ʹ–29ʹ 42n66 54:28ʹ–r.47ʹ 20n59 54 r.2 181n308 54 r.5–7 18 54 r.10–16 21 54 r.16–24 22 54 r.124 24n75 57:28ʹ–33ʹ 35n33 57 iii 28–29 39 57 iii 30–34 19 57 iii 42–iv 6 19 57 iv 7–v 2 19 57 v 10–11 19 57 v 12–13 19 57 vi 1–14 19 57 vi 2–3 181n308 57 vi 24–25 19 57 vi 28–34 20 58 iii 8–iv 4 19 58 iv 5–vi 6 19 60:20ʹ 19n57 60:21ʹ 181n308 60:22ʹ 19 60:23ʹ–33ʹ 20 64:3 20n59 74:5 20n59 75:9 20n59 77:5 20n59 77:8–11 22 77:52 181n308 78:5 20n59 79:5 20n59 84:4 20n59 85:4 20n59 86:4 20n59 93:3 20n59 98 r.3 20n59 104 23 104 i 18–ii 9 22 104 ii 9–23 22

104 ii 41–49 21 105 23 105 iv 25–30 21 105 v 1–15 21 105 v 10–22 21 105 v 23–38 20 105 vi 3–10 21 105 vi 11–27 21 105 vi 27–32 20 106 i 1–ii 3 22 106 iii 39–53 21 106 iv 33–47 21 111 i 1ʹ–13ʹ 22 111 v 9ʹ–10ʹ 21 113:18 20n59 113:20–27 20 114–116 23 116:1ʹ–9ʹ 22 119–123 21 119:4–10 20 119:10 21 127:18ʹ–19ʹ 20n59, 21–22 128:8 22 128:8–17 20n59 128:9 22 128:15–16 22 129:15 20n59 129:19 22 129:29–32 22 130:9–16 20n59 130:11 22 130:15 22 131:10–13 22 131:14–15 22 133:15–35 20n59 133:20 22 133:30–33 22 134:6–15 20n59 134:11–15 22 135:6–15 20n59 135:11–15 22 136:2–17 20n59 136:11–17 22 137:10–13 20n59, 22 138 20n59 139 20n59 1001 ii 5ʹ–11ʹ 20n59, 22 1002 ii 6–8 20n59 1005:8ʹ 18

253

254

Index of References

SAA I 31:r.26–29 151n191 54 24n72 64 24n72 66 192n349 66:18–r.15 192n349 132 24n72 133 24n72 158:4 192n349

161 24n72 164 24n72 166 24n72 168 24n72

CIS I no. 1

12n23

SAA VII 175 24n72

COS 2 no. 2.20B no. 29 no. 32 no. 35, col. B, 9–12 no. 36 no. 36, 19–20a no. 57

12n17 13n27 12n23 13n28 13n26 13n28 13n28

KAI no. 10, 2:11–15

12n23

SAA VIII 247 24n72 SAA X 21 24n72 24 22n64 88 24n72 98 24n72 174 24n72 347–370 24n73 349 24–27, 24n72, 33 349:7 27 349:10–19 192n349 354:5–8 192n349 SAA XIII 2 24n72 26 24n72 138 24n72 145 24n72

Phoenicia

SSI 3 94–99 12n23 97 13n24 Ugarit CAT 1.4, col. V 10–11

184n314

RS 94.2953 12

Index of Modern Authors Abou-Assaf, A. 143n140 Abusch, I. T., and P.-A. Beaulieu 31n11 Achenbach, R. 39n50 Ackerman, S. 95n328 Albers, G. 4n9, 163n241, 169n261, 172n274, 174n281 Allen, L. C. 91n311, 94n323, 95n325, 145n152 Alobaidi, S.-J., Y. Goldman, and M. Küchler 50n106 Altmann, P. 33n24 Ambraseys, N. 40nn57.63, 41n64 Amiran, D. H. K. 39+n51, 41 Amiran, D. H. K., E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte 39n53 Anastasio, S. 174n282, 183n312 Andersen, F. I., and D. N. Freedman 40n58 Antonio Ramirez, J. 3n4 Arieh, E. 39n52 Ariel, D. T., and A. De Groot 106n357 Armstrong, K. 88n290 Arnaud, D. 12nn18.21 Arnold, D. 141n128, 162n239 Auld, A. G. 110n4 Avigad, N. 89n300, 105n349 Avishur, Y. 123n70 Bagg, A. M. 53n125 Balfour, A. 2n3, 4nn13.15 Banks, D. 31n11 Barkay, G. 106n353 Barker, M. 4n13 Barnes, W. E. 3n5, 64n181, 117n29, 162n240, 163n243, 170n263, 196n353, 210n372 Barnett, R. D., J Curtis, and N. Tallis 23n68 Barthélemy, D. 118+n37, 128n82, 162n240, 165n248 Beals, E. W. 184n318 Becking, B., and M. Djikstra 82n259

Becking, B., and L. K. Grabbe 31n11 Beckman, G. M., and T. J. Lewis 48n94 Beentjes, P. C. 150n184 Begg, C. 52n121 Begg, C. T., and P. Spilsbury 131n90 Ben-Dov, M. 4n13, 105n349 Benzinger, I. 3n5, 199n359 Ben Zvi, E. 73n222, 150n184 Bergamini, G. 20n61 Berman, J. A. 4n15 Biran, A. 154n204, 186n325 Bird, P. A. 79+n248 Bloch-Smith, E. 187n333 Block, D. I. 36+n38, 63n171, 92nn313.317, 93n322, 95n327, 115n23, 129+nn85–86, 145n153, 146nn159.161, 147n163 Blyth, E. 10n5 Boda, M. J., and J. R. Novotny 4n9, 15n36 Bodi, D. 22n65 Bogaert, P.-M. 85n271 Borowski, E. 193n351 Bourke, S. 10n1 Braidwood, R. J., L. S. Braidwood, and R. C. Haines 62n169 Braun, R. 147n166 Bretschneider, J. 210n370 Briggs, C. A., and E. G. Briggs 122n60 Briggs, R. S. 34n29 Bright, J. 30n8 Broshi, M. 107n364 Brueggemann, W. 3n5, 210n373 Buis, P. 3n5, 7n32, 175n287, 188+n335 Bunimovitz, S., and Z. Lederman 46n89 Buren, E. D. 82n259 Burney, C. F. 3n5, 61n163, 116n26, 117n29, 132+n95, 156n212, 159n225, 167n256, 170n264, 171n272, 172n273, 175n286, 190n338 Busink, T. A. 3, 6n21, 71+n213, 83n261, 97–98n333, 110n5, 128–129+n83,

256

Index of Modern Authors

137n115, 152n194, 155n207, 162n235, 174n282 Cagni, L. 22n65 Cahill, J. M. 108n370 Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. C. 19n54 Carreira, J. N. 126n76 Carroll, R. P. 86nn279.299 Chaney, W. R., and M. Basbous 184n316 Chang-Ho, J. 212n378 Chyutin, M. 3n6 Claburn, W. E. 76n235 Clements, R. E. 4n13, 150n180 Clifford, R. J. 150n180 Cogan, M. 38, 112n10, 113n11, 114nn19.21, 117+n34, 126nn77.79, 135n103, 140+n123, 152n194, 155n206, 159n225, 162n237, 164n245, 167n256, 170nn266– 267, 175n284, 176n291, 188n334, 191nn345.347 Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor 3, 33n20, 37n41, 38n49, 44nn76.79, 53n123, 55n132, 61n163, 67n195, 71n208, 79n246, 80n254, 97n333, 114 Cohn, R. L. 54n127, 60+n160 Cole, H. F. G. 3n6, 97n333 Comay, J. 2n3, 3n6 Congar, Y. 4n13 Cook, F. C. 175n286 Cooke, G. A. 93+n320, 145n151 Craigie, P. C. 121n54, 122+nn61.64, 123n67 Culican, W. 162n234, 210n370 Curtis, E. L., and A. A. Madsen 148n168 Dahood, M. 122n60, 123n67 Dalley, S. 60n161 Dandamayev, M. A. 26n77 Davey, C. J. 3n6, 4n9 Daviau, M. P. M. 75n232 Day, J. 4n13, 70n207, 78n241 De Groot, A., H. Geva, and I. Yezerski 106n352 de Hemmer Gudme, A. K. 42n66 Dell, K. J. 40n61 Deller, K. 27nn83 Deller, K., and S. Parpola 27n85 Dever, W. G., and S. Gitin 31n11 DeVries, S. J. 3n5, 112n7, 117+n35, 135nn100.103, 138+n119, 142n132,

156n212, 158n218, 159n223, 160+n226, 161, 171n268, 198+n357 Dietrich, W., and M. A. Klopfenstein 48n94 Dillard, R. B. 158n222, 166n251 Dirksen, P. B. 148n168 Dreier, L. 119n45, 120n46 Dubovský, P. 26nn79–81, 53n124 Dumas, P. 4nn13.15 Dutcher-Walls, P. N. 33n22, 48n97 Edelman, D. 70n204 Eder, C. 19n56 Edersheim, A. 2n3, 131n91 Eichrodt, W. 146n158 Elgavish, D. 43n74 Elkowicz, D. 4n9, 10n6, 141n128, 144n142, 169n260, 211n374 Emerton, J. A. 82n259 Eph’al, I., H. Tadmor, and N. Na’aman 31n11 Ernst, S. 56n139, 57n140, 59n154, 60n158, 65n187 Evans, P. S. 45n82, 70n206 Eynikel, E. 76n235, 77n237, 78n239, 79n246, 81n256 Fabry, H. J. 95n326 Faust, A. 45n83, 107n365, 186n327 Feldman, M. H., I. J. Winter, and J. Cheng 189n337 Fichtner, J. and K. D. Fricke 117n31, 132n92, 135n103 Finkelstein, I. 102n345, 106n362, 107+nn368–369 Finkelstein, I., and N. A. Silberman 106n360, 107n364 Fitzgerald, M. 10n10, 23n67 Focant, C. 4n13 Frahm, E. 17+n48 Frame, G. 20+nn58.60, 22n63 Franklin, N. 107n368 Fried, S. L. 70n204, 76n235 Fritz, V. 3n5, 4n11, 71n212, 97n333, 114nn15.18, 116n27, 117n31, 141+n126, 162n235, 170n266, 173n276, 175n286, 176n290, 190n338, 204n366, 205n367 Furay, C., and M. J. Salevouris 31n11 Gadegaard, N. H. 57+n146, 58n151

Index of Modern Authors Galil, G. 4n13 Galling, K. 87n286, 142n134 Galter, H. D. 19n55, 24n71, 35n33 Ganzel, T., and E. H. Shalom 145n150 Garbini, G. 30n9 Garcia-López, F. 64n177 Garofalo, S. 3n5, 160+n228, 171n268 George, A. R. 15n37, 19n53, 20n61, 22n62 George, M. K. 117n28 Gerhards, A. 47n91 Gerlach, I., and D. Raue 211n377 Gerstenberger, E. S. 123n70 Geva, H. 105n351, 106nn355–356, 107n364 Gianto, A. 137n116 Gibson, J. C. L. 13 Girard, R. 73 Gitin, S. 54n131 Gitin, S., T. K. Dothan, and J. Naveh 13nn26.29 Gittlen, B. M. 48n94 Godding, D. W. 118n37, 128n81, 135n101 Görg, M. 144n148, 151n193, 164n245, 187n332 Grabbe, L. L. 31n11 Gray, J. 3, 6+n23, 7n32, 32n13, 50n108, 63+n175, 64n183, 67n196, 74n230, 78n243, 84n266, 97n333, 110n2, 113n12, 116n26, 117n29, 132n92, 135n103, 143n139, 144n147, 151n192, 152n197, 155n206, 157n216, 164n245, 170n264, 175n283, 176n291, 191n348, 198n356 Greenberg, M. 92n315 Greenfield, J. C. 27n85 Gut, R. V. 15n38 Gutmann, J. 3n4 Hadley, J. M. 78n241, 79n246 Haggi, A., and M. Artzy 185n322 Haller, A., and W. Andrae 19n56 Halpern, B. 73n221 Hamblin, W. J., and D. R. Seely 2n2 Hamp, V. 89n296, 97n333 Haran, M. 4n13, 75n233, 117n28 Harper, W. R. 40n62 Harrison, T. 61n168, 142n131, 169n260 Hasegawa, S. 34n25, 46n88 Haupt, P. 67+n200 Heger, P. 54n129, 56n137, 57nn143–144, 58+n150, 59nn154–155

257

Hengst, D. d. 31n11 Hentschel, G. 3n5, 6n22, 34n28, 97n333, 114n18, 116n26, 117n31, 135n103, 136+n110, 140+n121, 167n256, 171n272, 200+n361 Herr, B. 155n207, 174n280 Himbaza, I. 73n222 Hobbs, T. R. 49n102, 50n109, 51n115, 55, 56n135, 79n247, 97n333 Hobson, R. 31n11 Hoffmann, H.-D. 73n220, 74+n231, 81n258, 97n333 Holladay, W. L. 68n202, 86nn280.282.283, 89n298 Holloway, S. W. 53n126 Hossfeld, F. L. 91n307 Hossfeld, F. L., et al. 121nn56.58 Howie, C. G. 90n303, 145n133, 146n154 Hundley, M. B. 117n28 Hurowitz, V. A. 3n7, 5+n18, 7+n30, 13, 15n36, 26+n77, 29+n1, 30n4, 33+n23, 42n68, 61n167, 99+n339, 143+n137, 162n235, 163n243, 177n296, 209+n369 Hurvitz, A. 149n176, 150n182 Huxley, M. 19n56 Iwry, S. 81n256 Jacquet, L. 121n56 James, F. W. 144n143 Jannsen, J. J. 41n65 Janowski, B. 4n15 Japhet, S. 116n27, 148+n171, 149n174, 150n181, 154n202 Jarick, J. 149n175, 150n177 Jenson, P. P. 117n28 Jericke, D. 3n6, 4n9, 144n142, 174n279 Jones, G. H. 3n5, 44n77, 45n87, 118n36, 151n190, 152n197, 199n359 Joosten, J. 111n6 Joyce, P. M. 145n149 Kalimi, I. 110n4, 150n184 Kamlah, J., and H. Michelau 4n9, 10n6, 15n36 Katzenstein, H. J. 48n99 Kaufman, A. S. 131n91 Keel, O. 80n252, 101n341 Keil, C. 3n5, 167n256, 170n265

258

Index of Modern Authors

Keller, D. R., and C. A. Tuttle 185n322 Kellerman, D. 87n288, 88n293 Kenan, O. 31n11 Kenyon, K. 186 Keulen, P. S. F. v. 72n217, 74n227 Kim, U. Y. 76n235 King, P. J., and L. E. Stager 81n255 Kittel, R. 65+n185 Kittel, R., and W. Nowack 3n5, 65n185, 144n147, 171n272, 197+n354 Klein, A. H., and M. C. Klein 3n6 Klein, R. W. 67n199, 116n27, 120n47, 148+nn167.170.172, 149n174, 158n220 Klostermann, A. 44n77 Knauf, E. A. 39n50 Knoppers, G. N. 148n169 Kohlmeyer, K. 4n9, 186n330, 210n371 Koldewey, R. 20n61 Konkel, M. 90n304 Korjenkov, A. M., and E. Mazor 39n51 Korpel, M. C. A. 190–191+n344 Kottsieper, I. 184+n313 Kragelund, H. E. 86n277 Kratz, R. G., and B. Neuschäfer 111n6 Kratz, R. G., and H. Spieckermann 22n65, 82n259 Kraus, C. S., et al. 31n11 Kraus, H. J. 122n63, 123nn70–71 Kraus, W., et al. 111n6 Kuhl, C. 136n113 Kunin, S. D. 4nn13–14, 81n258 Laato, A. J. 76n235 Lackenbacher, S. 8n36, 11n13, 14n34, 24n70, 29n2 Lamon, R. S., G. M. Shipton, and G. Loud 185n323 Landersdorfer, S. K. 3n5, 58n152, 71n208, 170n267, 176n291 Laperrousaz, E.-M. 3n6, 105n349, 106n354, 185n322 Lasine, S. 72n218 Lawler, A. 186n326 Leeven, A. 145n150 Lemaire, A. 7+n28, 60+n156, 82n259, 84, 85n270, 102+n344, 104 Lemche, N. P. 31n11 Lerner, B. M. 58n149 Lesétre, H. 3n8, 4n10, 97n333

Leslie, E. A. 48n94 Leuchter, M. 89n296 Levenson, J. D. 91n305 Levin, C. 32n15, 42n71, 43n75, 48n98, 49+n101, 51n116, 52, 56n138, 58n147, 60+n159, 61n162, 65n186 Lewy, H. 14n35 Lindner, M. 176n288 Liphshitz, N., and G. Biger 184nn315.318– 320 Lipiński, E. 79n245, 80nn250.254, 183n311 Lipschits, O., Y. Gadot, and D. Langgut 81n257 Liverani, M. 31n11 Long, B. O. 3n5, 49n104, 60n157 Lopasso, V. 85nn271–272, 86n283, 87n287 Loretz, O. 122+n65 Lowery, R. H. 73n219 Lumby, J. R. 3n5, 80n249, 114n16, 135n103, 142n132, 162n235 Lundbom, J. R. 67n200, 85n273, 86nn278– 279, 87n287, 88n292 Lundquist, J. M. 2n3, 4n13 Lust, J. 111n6, 128n81, 135n102 Maier, J. 129n87, 130n88 Malamat, A. 31n11 Maré, L. P. 122n66, 123nn68–70.72 Markschies, C. 111n6 Martin, E. L. 3n4 Matsushima, E. 27+n82 Mayes, A. D. H. 45n84 Mazar, A. 107n368, 162n232 Mazar, E. 105n349, 106n358, 107+n367, 108n370, 186 Mazzoni, S. 143n141, 211+n375, 377 McCormick, C. M. 4n13, 4–5+n16, 5+n19, 190+n341 McKane, W. F. B. A. 86nn281.283, 87n287 McKay, J. W. 53n126 McKenzie, S. L., and T. Römer 31n11 Mettinger, T. N. D. 193n351 Meyers, C. 1+n1, 3n8, 4nn10.12, 6+n24, 30n7, 101n343, 161n229, 162n237 Michel, D. 137–138+n118 Mierse, W. E. 4n9, 144n143, 162nn232–233 Milgrom, J. 40n59, 58 Millard, A. R. 108n370 Mills, M. E. 90n302

Index of Modern Authors Möhlenbrink, K. 3n7, 128–129, 135+n105, 136n112, 141+n124, 163n241, 174n279 Monroe, L. A. S. 61n167, 76n235, 143n140, 208n368 Montgomery, J. A. 3, 44n77, 50n108, 54n127, 65+nn188–189, 67n195, 79n246, 80n254, 117nn29.31, 126n80, 135n103, 170n266, 176n291 Morrison, T. 3n4 Moscati, S. 12n22, 13n25 Mulder, M. J. 3, 66+nn190–191, 68, 112n10, 113nn11.13, 114nn16.18, 117+nn30–32, 136+n109, 142nn132–133, 143+n139, 151nn187.192, 152nn194–195, 153n199, 155n206, 159n225, 162n235, 164n245, 165+n247, 167n255, 170n266, 171nn268.272, 176nn288.290–291, 190+n340, 191+n346, 196n353, 199n359, 200n360 Müller, H.-P. 119n41, 120n49 Murphy, G. R. 183n309 Myers, J. M. 149n174 Na’aman, N. 7+n29, 32+n16, 53n124, 70n204, 79n245, 83+n263, 107nn365.368 Nahkola, A. 33n17 Nelson, R. D. 3n5 Nicholson, E. 76n235 Nobile, M. 3n5, 118n36, 135nn100.103 Noth, M. 3, 45nn85–86, 48n96, 113n13, 117n32, 132+n96, 135+n106, 142n132, 142–143+n135, 144n147, 157n216, 160+n227, 170n263, 171n272, 176nn288.290, 189+n336, 198+n356, 199 Novák, M. 208n368, 211n376 Novotny, J. R. 14+n34, 17n45, 35n31 Oates, J. 20n61 Oded, B. 53n124 O’Hare, D. M. 129n84 Ohm, A. T. 73+n223 Oppenheim, A. L. 26n76 Orlinsky, H. M. 97n333 Otto, E. 83n260, 87n285, 98n335 Ottosson, M. 4n9, 10n6, 101n342, 144+n144 Ouellette 3n6, 135–136+n107, 142n132, 143+n136, 144n147, 155n207, 162n236

259

Palmer, M. 121n55 Park, S. J. 78n241 Parker, B. J. 62n170 Parker, S. B., and M. S. Smith 184n314 Parrot, A. 3nn6–7 Patrich, J. 98n338, 142n129 Perles, F. 177n295 Perry, E. 10n3, 109n1, 186n328 Peters, F. E. 2n3 Petit, T. 193n351 Pettey, R. J. 82n259 Pietsch, M. 76n235, 77n238 Pisano, S. 203n365 Pitard, W. T. 12nn18.20, 13+n30 Pitcher, L. 31n11 Potts, D. T. 10n4 Prestel, J. 6n21 Provan, I. W. 3n5, 33n19, 45n87, 76n236, 82n259, 97n333, 112n10, 176n289 Rahlfs, A. 156 Ravasi, G. 121n57, 122+n59 Reade, J. 15n39, 16nn41–44, 17n47, 18nn49–50 Reich, R. 101n342, 106n357 Reich, R., and E. Shukron 106n359 Reich, R., E. Shukron, and O. Lernau 106n357 Rendtorff, R. 55n134 Reventlow, H. G. 88n295 Roberts, J. J. M. 3n8, 6+n25 Robker, J. M. 48n98 Römer, T. 79n244 Rosenfeld, A., et al. 39n50 Rupprecht, K. 6n21, 101n342, 135n100, 136+nn108.114, 140n120, 141+n127, 142n132 Sack, R. H. 26n78 Saldarini, A. J., and D. J. Harrington 130n89 Salignac Fénelon, F. o. L. V. 3n6, 69n203, 97n333, 110n5, 155n207 Šanda, A. 3n5, 37+n42, 44+n77, 61n164, 66–67+n194, 74+n230, 103n346, 114n20, 115n22, 117n31, 132+n94, 135+nn103–104, 170n263, 177n296 Schaudig, H. 10nn2.10, 11+nn11–12, 14nn32–33, 18n52, 23+n66, 35n32, 48n93

260

Index of Modern Authors

Schenker 31n11, 74n228, 111n6, 137n116, 153n200, 203n365 Schipper, J. 73n226 Schlögl, P. N. 3n5, 117n31, 132+n93 Schmitt, A. W. 18n51 Schniedewind, W. M. 30n5, 73+nn219.221– 222 Schulte, H. 49n100 Schweitzer, S. J. 147n165, 150n184 Sedlmeier, F. 93n322 Shiffman, L. H. 130n88 Shiloh, Y. 105n350, 107+n363, 185n321, 186 Simian-Yofre, H. 112n8, 157nn213–214 Ska, J. L. 119n39 Smelik, K. A. D. 54nn127–128.130 Smith, G. A. 3n7, 39n51, 110n5 Smith, J. Z. 4n14 Smith, M. S. 5+n19, 82n259 Soggin, J. A. 30n8, 40n60 Solvang, E. K. 49nn100.103, 51n113 Sonnet, J.-P. 4n15, 5n17, 79n244, 187n333 Spanier, K. 48n99 Spencer, N., D. Rosenow, and British Museum 10n5 Spieckermann, H. 53n126 Sprank, S. 92 Sprank, S., and K. Wiese 91n310, 92n313 Stade, B. 44n77, 66+n192, 103n346, 114+nn17–18, 197, 198, 199 Stade, B., and F. Schwally 3n5, 66n192, 114nn17–18, 144n145, 159n224, 197n355 Stager, L. E. 5n20, 31n12, 83n262, 106+n360, 107n364 Stager, L. E., and S. R. Wolff 80n251 Stähli, H.-P. 82n259 Stavrakopoulou, F. 72nn215–216, 73+nn224–225, 74n227 Stern, E. 185n322 Stern, E., and A. Mazar 31n11 Stevens, M. E. 3n6, 42n70 Stipp, H.-J. 80n250 Strange, J. 92n318, 186n329 Swanson, K. A. 70n204 Sweeney, M. A. 3n5, 33n21, 34n26, 71n208, 72n215, 74+n229, 75, 76n235, 117n33, 135nn100.103, 170n263, 176n290 Sweitzer, S. J. 30n6, 110n3

Tadmor, H. 140 Tate, M. E. 121n56 Thareani-Sussely, Y. 73n224 Thenius, O. 3n5, 61+n165, 62n169, 117n31, 170n265, 172n273 Thompson, D. A. 3n6, 150n179 Thompson, T. L 31n11 Tiemeyer, L.-S. 85n271 Tiňo, J. 147n164 Torijano Morales, P. 111n6 Trebolle Barrera, J. C. 111n6 Tuell, S. S. 146n156 Tushingham, A. D. 105n350 Ussishkin, D. 81+n257, 106n361, 107n366, 108n370, 184n320, 185n322 Uziel, J., and I. Shai 108n370 van Beek, G., and van Beek, O. 185n323 van der Toorn, K. 4n13 van Driel, G. 19n56 Vanhemelryck, F. 3n6, 167n257 van Keulen, P. S. F. 151n191 Van Seters, J. 4n13, 7+n34, 48n94 Vaughan, A. G. 70n204, 150n184 Vincent, P. L.-H., and P. A.-M. Steve 3, 110n5, 141n126, 150n179, 152n197, 153n199, 163n241, 186n331 Walsh, J. T. 3n5 Waterman, L. 7+n27, 136n111, 142nn130.132 Watson, W. G. E. 200n362 Weippert, H. 63+n174 Weiser, A. 122+n62 Welten, P. 4n9 Wetzel, F., and F. H. Weissbach 20n61 Wightman, G. J. 4n9, 162n238, 183n310, 212+n379 Wilber, K. 30n10 Wilkinson, R. H. 4n9 Willi, T. 50n107 Williamson, H. G. M. 31n11, 70nn204–205, 84n265, 147n165 Winter, I. 189n337 Wissmann, F. B. 56n136 Woodman, A. J. 31n11 Würthwein, E. 3, 7n32, 9n37, 32n14, 51n110, 54n130, 71n209, 84n266,

Index of Modern Authors 116n26, 117n32, 135n100, 141+n125, 142n134, 153n198, 160+n227, 162+n231, 166n250, 170n263, 175n283, 190n339 Yadin, Y. 130n88 Yadin, Y., et al. 40n56 Yeivin, S. 7+n33, 83n264, 150n183, 154n203, 166+n252 Zamora García, P. 3n5, 118n36, 135+n102, 138n119, 198n357 Zawadzki, S. 80n251 Zenger, E. 22n65 Zevit, Z. 7+n26

261

Zimmerli, W. 36+n37, 91–92+nn306– 307.312, 94n323, 115n23, 129n86, 134+n98, 145–146+nn151.155. 157.160.162, 147 Zlotowitz, B. M., and M. S. Rozenberg 122n60 Zukerman, A. 54n131 Zwickel, W. 3, 7nn31–32, 8n35, 29n3, 32, 47n92, 48n95, 51n112, 52n122, 54nn128.131, 56n139, 58n148, 59+n153, 72n214, 75n232, 86n284, 90nn301.303, 95n326, 97n333, 104n348, 110n5, 154n205, 162n237, 186n331, 187n333, 191n348

Index of Subjects Acco 185n321 Adad 14 Adad-nirari I 10n7, 11n14, 14, 15, 19 Adad-nirari II 15 Adad-nirari III 17, 46 Adrazaar 45 Ahaz, king of Judah 8, 31, 34n30, 43, 48, 52–69, 78n242, 80–81, 84, 96–97, 101, 103–104, 192, 211, 215 Ahaziah, king of Judah 49, 51 Ain Dara 4, 5n20, 61, 94, 143, 144n142, 162, 174, 208, 211, 216 Akhzib 185n321 alabaster 17 altar 12, 13, 31, 32, 48, 53–69, 70, 74–76, 78–81, 84, 87n287, 92–98, 103–104, 149, 150, 163, 177, 178, 180+n306, 190, 210, 215, 216 Amarna letters 7, 101n342 Amaziah, king of Judah 46, 100, 102, 103 Amaziah, prophet 210 Amon, king of Judah 56, 70, 74, 81+n258, 96, 101, 104 Anteraum, anteroom 162 Anu 14, 22 Arad 4 Aram(aeans) 29, 34, 43, 46, 52, 53, 55+n132, 84, 102, 103 Araunah 101n342 Asa, king of Judah 43, 48, 54n128, 97 asherah(s) 31, 70–82 ashlar 149, 180–182, 185–186 Ashur (god) 19+n55, 24, 70 Ashurbanipal 18, 19n56, 20, 22, 24 Ashur-dan I 14, 16 Ashur-uballit I 16 Assur (city) 14, 18n51, 19–20, 21 Athalia 48–52, 83, 103 Azariah, king of Judah 44n77

Baruch 88 batqu 36 battlements 21 Beth-Shean 144, 172 Beth Shemesh 45, 62 bīt akītu 18, 22 bīt ḫillāni 162 boxwood 19, 21, 24 brick(s) 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 32, 61, 184 bronze 12, 13, 22, 24, 55–69, 70–71, 93, 97, 98, 150n178, 154–155, 161, 181, 191, 192n349, 215 Byblos 12 calyx 188 capital 12–14, 157 cedar 24, 130n89, 136, 152, 164n245, 165, 167–169, 173, 174–186, 188, 191, 207– 212, 214–216 Chronicler 38n48, 50–52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 67, 98n337, 109n3, 115, 131, 142, 147–150, 153, 155, 158, 159, 163, 164, 166, 170, 178, 184 clay 54n131, 105 cobblestone 61–63, 69, 103, 215 colonnade 14 column 12, 13, 50–52, 70, 98, 102, 105, 146, 150n178, 151–155, 157, 160–162, 164n245, 183 crenellations 17, 23, 181 cypress 19, 24, 176, 178+n299, 179, 184 David 6, 7, 42+n69, 45, 49, 56, 72, 76, 83–84, 101, 107n368, 122n66, 141, 147, 149, 178, 182 decoration 10+n5, 13–14, 16–18, 21, 23, 25–28, 30, 42, 44+n77, 45, 69, 70, 96, 100–102, 108, 109, 128, 161, 162, 178–180, 182, 184, 186–193, 207, 209, 213, 214, 216

Index of Subjects Dtr 7, 8, 31, 56, 72, 74, 84, 107, 109 Ea 12 earthquake 14, 16, 18, 39–41, 96, 153–154, 161, 212 Ebabbar 11 ebony 19, 21, 24 Egypt/Egyptian 10, 13n25, 29, 42n66, 45, 47, 52, 102n345, 105, 144, 151+n190, 162, 163n241, 164n245, 184, 185n323, 186n329 Ekron 13, 144+n142, 211 Elam 10, 20, 22, 25, 27 Elijah 103 Enki 11 Esagil 11, 15, 19, 20–21, 22+n64, 120n45 Esarhaddon 10n8, 17, 18–24, 42n66 Esharra 15, 19–20 exegetical methodologies 5–6, 9, 30–32, 33, 48n97, 49, 60, 73, 110–111, 112, 125n75, 137, 141, 201, 205 flood 14 foundation(s) 10–12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 36, 181–183, 185–186, 207 Gihon 107 gold 12, 13, 19, 21–27, 42n66, 44–46, 60, 99, 100, 113–115, 158nn219.221, 159, 161, 166, 174, 186, 188, 189–192, 194– 195, 199, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 212 gourd 188 Hazael 45n85, 46, 102 Hazor 40, 41, 107n368, 211 Herod 8 Hezekiah, king of Judah 8, 34n30, 43–47, 48, 58+n152, 60n161, 70–72, 73, 76, 77, 81–82, 86, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 120, 121, 124, 149, 190, 192 Holy of Holies 113–117, 119n40, 124, 125, 158, 168–174, 204, 207, 212, 214 Huldah 50n106, 51, 77 ideology 4, 5, 7, 24, 31, 41, 70, 190 in antis 211 inner house 112–117, 124, 125, 170, 173, 187, 189, 195, 199, 201, 204–210, 214, 215

263

Ishtar 14–16, 18+n51, 22 ivory 19, 21, 24, 45, 192n349 Jehoahaz, king of Judah 56 Jehoiada 83, 96, 98, 101, 103, 104n347 Jehoiakim, king of Judah 73, 88, 120, 124 Jehoram, king of Judah 48 Jeroboam I, king of Israel 48 Jeroboam II, king of Israel 40 Jezebel 48 Joash, king of Israel 46–47, 96, 100 Joash, king of Judah 32–39, 44n77, 49–52, 77, 82, 83, 96, 98, 100–103, 109, 185, 211, 213, 215 Josiah, king of Judah 8, 32–39, 48, 50+nn105.107, 51, 58, 70, 72, 73, 76–82, 96–98, 100, 101, 104, 109, 120, 124, 167n257, 185, 213 Jotham, king of Judah 83–87, 93, 95n330, 97, 101, 103 kaṣāru 36 Kidron 48 Lachish 184 Langhaus 211 Levite(s) 51, 52 limestone 19, 24, 54n131, 57, 183 looting 14, 19, 28, 29, 42+nn66.67, 43, 45– 47, 58, 100, 102+n345, 103, 186, 213, 215 Maacah 48 Manasseh, king of Judah 8, 33, 48, 54, 56, 70, 72–76, 77, 78, 81+n258, 82, 96, 97, 101, 104 Marduk 11, 19–22, 25, 120n46 Mar-Issar 24–27 massaku 66 maštaku 66 Megiddo 99n339, 107n368, 185nn321.324, 211 migdol 4, 163+n241, 211 mišneh 106 Nabonidus 18n52, 22, 35n33 Nathan, prophet 183 Nathan-melech 80+n253, 82, 99 nave 94, 113n14, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120n47, 126n78, 130n89, 157n216, 158n220

264

Index of Subjects

neḥuštan 58n152, 70–72, 81, 82, 97 offering 21, 32, 54+n131, 56–59, 69, 84, 87n287, 104, 129n85, 150, 180, 210, 215, 216 Omri 48+n99, 49 Ophel 106, 107 Padi 13 parwarim 80, 82, 97n332 pavement 21, 61–62, 98, 104, 108, 215 Pekah, king of Judah 52, 84 Pella 10n1, 169n260 Phoenicia 12, 48, 52, 103, 119n43, 162n234, 185n321 pine 164n245, 168, 179 platform 16, 18, 50–52, 105, 142n132, 147, 161, 173n276, 185, 186, 198 porch 83n264, 144, 149, 152, 155n297, 160–163, 207, 209, 210, 215 portico 12, 14, 129, 144, 152n197, 162n237, 163 propylaeum 162 refugee 107 Rezin 52, 84 Rome/Roman 10, 149 ṣabātu 36 Sarepta 185n321 Sargon I 14 Sargon II 17, 18, 192n349 scribe 24, 25, 26, 88+n292, 89, 90 Sennacherib 17–20, 24, 29n2, 44, 66n161, 87, 105 Shalmaneser I 15, 16 Shalmaneser III 17 Shamshi-Adad I 10n7, 15+n39, 16, 17, 18 Shamshi-Adad IV 16 Shiloh 89n298, 105n350, 115, 120+nn47.48, 124 Shishak 45–47, 102+n345 Sichem 211 silver 21, 22, 25, 26n76, 42n66, 44+n80, 45+n81, 46, 60, 99, 100, 186, 192n349

Sippar 11, 22, 35n33 soldering 191, 192, 207 specialized workers 21, 23–24, 27, 38–39, 191 stairs 12, 51, 57, 128, 130n89, 131, 143, 146, 161, 200, 211, 215 storage spaces 41–43, 44, 47, 99, 100, 102, 129, 147 submission 22, 53, 69 šubtu 66 Tel Mevorakh 169n261 Tell Afis 143, 144n142, 211 Tell Dan 185 Tell Halaf 144, 211 Tell Qasile 141, 169, 174 Tell Tainat 4, 5n20, 142, 144, 162, 169, 174, 208, 211, 216 Tiglath-pileser I 14–16 Tiglath-pileser III 53–55, 60, 67n195, 69, 104 Timnah 62 treasure 41–46, 69, 79n244, 87n287, 215 tripartite temple 6, 94, 124, 172, 207–212, 214, 216 Tukulti-ninurta I 14–16 Ubaid period 10 Ugarit 12–13, 119n43, 123n67 uḫḫuzu 177, 192n349 Uriah 55–60, 69 utensils of temple 21, 23, 34, 42, 58, 60n161, 98, 129, 140, 144, 146 Uzziah, king of Judah 40, 84, 120, 124 vestibule 120n47, 144, 146, 148, 157n216, 158n220, 160–163, 207, 210 Wiederaufnahme 56, 136, 137, 139 Yahimilik 12–13 Zechariah, prophet 40–41 Zedekiah, king of Judah 2, 47, 68, 100 ziggurat 10n9, 16, 18, 20, 22, 149