The Jewish Temple

A Non-Biblical Sourcebook

Robert Hayward

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• ISBN:
  9781134851935
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Robert Hayward offers a careful analysis of surviving accounts of the Temple and its service. All the central texts are provided in translation, with a detailed commentary. While descriptions of the Temple and its service are available, discussions of the meaning of these things are less easily found. This study clearly illustrates how the Temple was seen as a meeting point between heaven and earth, its service being an earthly representation of heavenly reality. Jews regarded the Temple service therefore as having significance for the whole created world. The Jewish Temple offers a valuable collection of materials both for those looking for an introduction to the topic and for the scholar interested in grasping the meanings beyond those texts.

1
HECATAEUS OF ABDERA

Josephus informs us (Cont. Ap. I. 183) that Hecataeus of Abdera was a Greek philosopher who lived in the days of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I (Soter) son of Lagus (c.367/6–283/2 BC), and goes to some lengths to demonstrate that such is the case (Cont. Ap. I. 184–185). Certainly this Hecataeus wrote a book on the history of Egypt, incorporating references to the Jews, which Diodorus Siculus (died c.20 BC) used as a source for his historical writings (XL. 3). Josephus (Cont. Ap. I. 183) does not refer to his Egyptian History, but states rather that Hecataeus wrote another book specifically about the Jews. From the latter he quotes substantial portions (Cont. Ap. I. 185–204), including a description of Jerusalem, the Temple, observations on its cult, and a note on the priests. It is these sections alone as preserved in Cont. Ap. I. 187, 197–199, which are here under consideration. Other material attributed to Hecataeus falls outside the scope of this study.

If Hecataeus was truly the author of the writings which Josephus reproduces, we have before us one of the oldest surviving descriptions (outside the Bible) of the Jewish Temple and its Service, most unusually written by a non-Jew. For these reasons alone, such information should occupy a special place in any account of the Temple and its rites. The question whether these fragments are authentic, therefore, is a matter of great moment: it is also far from simple. They are considered first in this book because the balance of probability suggests that they are genuine, for the most part the work of Hecataeus, and therefore written in the late fourth or early third century BC. None the less, since their authenticity is so keenly disputed, a brief summary of scholarly opinion is desirable.¹

Already in the second century AD, Origen (Contra Celsum I. 15) records that Herennius Philo expressed doubts about the work

On the Jews attributed to Hecataeus, saying that if Hecataeus had been the author, he had been influenced by Jewish propaganda.² Josephus (Ant. I. 159) ascribes yet another book to Hecataeus, entitled On Abraham, this work is now almost universally regarded as inauthentic, and suggests that other spuria may have been passed off in the name of Hecataeus.³ The fragments are also said to contain anachronisms. Thus, in the material translated here, we read of a high priest Ezekias (Cont. Ap. I. 187) otherwise unattested in Josephus’ list of high priests, and of tithes given to the priests (Cont. Ap. I. 188) rather than to the Levites, a practice best attested in the Maccabean period (Judith 11:13; Jubilees 32:15). In fragments other than those given below, we read of Jewish resistance to the death when their laws are attacked by foreigners (Cont. Ap. I. 191), which recalls the period of the Maccabean revolt. Further, Hecataeus is said to have praised Jews for destroying Babylonian pagan altars and temples (Cont. Ap. I. 192– 193), a strange sentiment in the works of a Gentile; and he reports an otherwise unknown award by Alexander to the Jews of the land of Samaria as a reward for their loyalty (Cont. Ap. II. 42–43).⁴

All these points, however, can be countered. Thus Herennius Philo does not actually state that On the Jews is spurious; and Gentile writings favourable to Jews were known in the late fourth to early third centuries BC.⁵ Neither is it logical to argue that because On Abraham is inauthentic, On the Jews must also be spurious. A coin from Beth-Zur, of late Persian or early Greek vintage, has the name Hezekiah inscribed in Hebrew, suggesting that this man was of noble lineage; and it should be noted that the term ‘high priest’ need only signify ‘member of a high priestly family’.⁶ On the tithes, we simply do not know when the custom changed whereby they were given to priests rather than Levites. Nor can it be asserted that Jews did not suffer for their laws before the days of the Maccabean revolt; the biblical book of Esther indicates persecution in the Persian period. The praise of Jews destroying heathen cult sites, and the grant of Samaria to Jews by Alexander, may derive from Jewish sources; but these notes could have been inserted into the genuine text of Hecataeus by a pious Jew.⁷

In short, it would appear that the case against the authenticity of fragments of Hecataeus’ On the Jews remains unproven. None the less, since the matter is so finely balanced, it is appropriate to record datings of the fragments given by three representative scholars who regard them as spurious. Thus, with regard to the fragments translated here, Wacholder⁸ suggests that their author was a Jew, probably a priest of Jerusalem, writing around 300 BC. Walter posits two men, Pseudo-Hecataeus I and II, the first of whom penned On the Jews probably around 100 BC, very likely in Alexandria.⁹ Finally, we may note Holladay’s arguments for a date in the first half of the second century BC, the author working either in Palestine or Egypt.¹⁰

TRANSLATION OF FRAGMENTS OF HECATAEUS OF ABDERA PRESERVED BYJOSEPHUS, CONTRA APIONEMI. 187; 197–199

187 Of these, he (Hecataeus) says, there was one Ezekias a high priest of the Jews, a man about sixty-six years of age, great in esteem among his fellow countrymen and not unintelligent of soul; he was still competent in speech, and in matters of business he was skilled more than any other. Yet he says that all the priests of the Jews who receive the tithe of the revenue and administer the affairs of the community are around 1,500.

197. For while there are many fortresses and villages of the Jews throughout the country, there is one strong city of about fifty stades’ circumference which around 120,000 men inhabit; and they call it Jerusalem.

198. And here, almost at the middle of the city, is a stone-enclosed precinct, the length about five plethra, and the breadth about one hundred cubits, having double gates. In this, there is a square altar composed of unhewn, undressed stones collected together. Each side is twenty cubits, and its height ten cubits. Now alongside it is a large building where there is an altar and a lampstand; both are golden, and their weight two talents.

199. Upon these is an inextinguishable light both night and day. There is absolutely no statue or votive offering; nor is there any plant of any kind at all such as a sacred grove, or anything of such a kind. And priests spend their time in it night and day, performing certain purificatory rites; and they drink absolutely no wine at all in the temple.

NOTE ON THE TEXT

The Greek text translated is that given by H. St J.Thackeray in Josephus, vol. 1: The Life, Against Apion, Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1966).

COMMENTARY

187 As was noted earlier, a silver coin of the later Persian or early Hellenistic periods discovered in excavations at Beth-Zur is inscribed with the name Hezekiah, along with another word, in Hebrew script. The coin is thus roughly contemporary with the reign of Ptolemy I, when Hecataeus of Abdera was writing. Most students of the coin interpret the second word as Hebrew yhd, to give the sense ‘Hezekiah of Judah’, indicating no doubt a man of some importance: possibly he was the Ezekias referred to here, or one related to him.¹¹ The description of him as high priest need not indicate that he had occupied the office of high priest, but simply that he came of a family related to the members of the high priesthood.¹²

According to biblical law, the tithe was given first to the Levites, who themselves were to render a tenth of the tithe to the priests (Num. 18:21, 25–29). This practice was still current in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 10:37–38) and the writer of Tobit 1:6; but Judith 11:13 and Jubilees 32:15 attest a change of practice, whereby the tithes are given to the priests in the first instance, the custom which obtained in the time of Josephus (Ant. XX. 181; 206–207; Vita 63, 80). The Talmud ascribes this change of practice to Ezra (b. Hull. 131b; Ket. 26a), thereby indicating its antiquity; but in truth, we do not know exactly when the change of custom took place. The fact that Jubilees records it without comment, however, suggests that the change in the law was uncontroversial for the writer of that book: this probably means that it took place long before the Maccabean revolt.¹³ Furthermore, even if the law had not been changed by 300 BC, the pagan Hecataeus may not have been aware of the precise distinction between priests and Levites.¹⁴

The priests rule the Jewish community, says Hecataeus: this was indeed so, and its significance in relation to the Temple Service was later (c.190 BC) explored in some detail by Jesus ben Sira. Hecataeus is quoted by Diodorus Siculus (XL. 3:5) to the effect that priests rule the Jewish state.¹⁵ But the number 1,500 is very small, when set alongside the biblical evidence for priestly numbers in early Second Temple times (Ezra 2:36–39; 1 Chr. 9:13), the evidence of Aristeas 95 discussed below, and Josephus (Cont. Ap. II. 108).¹⁶

197. Hecataeus refers to ‘fortresses’, ochurômata, already a feature of the Judaean countryside in the earliest Maccabean times (e.g., 1 Macc. 4:61; 5:9, 11; 9:50) and before.¹⁷ But Jerusalem was the only strong city (polis ochura);¹⁸ ochura indicates a city which is firm, stout, and lasting, and was used by LXX to indicate the might of the Canaanite cities captured by Israel (Num. 13:29; Deut. 3:5). Fifty stades is around six miles, which Hecataeus gives as the city’s circumference: this seems large, since Josephus (War V. 159) puts it at thirty-three stades. The size of the population, too, is probably inflated.¹⁹

198. The Temple was not actually in the middle of the city, and Hecataeus qualifies the location slightly.²⁰ His description of it as an enclosed precint, peribolos, recalls two other descriptions. Greek ben Sira 50:2 speaks of repairs to ‘the high underwork of the enclosed precinct of the Temple’, and seems to have external building work in mind: nothing in the original Hebrew corresponds exactly to what the Greek translator has written. Aristeas 84 used peribolos to describe the three enclosed areas which make up the Temple site proper: see also Philo, De Spec. Leg. I. 71, who describes the outer peribolos as being strong (ôchúrôtai). Josephus (Ant. XV. 418) also designates the Court of Women a peribolos. Hecataeus, then, seems to be giving a general external description of an enclosure or large court he estimates as 500 feet in length and 150 feet wide.²¹ For the double gates, see also Philo, De Spec. Leg. I. 71 and Greek ben Sira 50:2.

The altar of burnt offering Hecataeus calls bômos, which LXX uses often to speak of the pagan altar (e.g., Exod. 34:13; Num. 23:1–2, 4, 14; Deut. 7:5; 12:13) and ‘high place’, the similar-sounding Hebrew bâmâh (Hos. 10:8; Amos 7:9; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 7:31; 31:35). But it should be noted that Greek ben Sira 50:12, 14, uses this word of the altar in the Temple, as does Josephus (Ant. III. 149) of the altar of burnt-offering in the Tabernacle. The altar is square (tetragônos), as described in LXX Exod. 27:1. Its stones are unhewn (atmêtoi; cf. LXX Exod. 20:25, ouk…tmêtous, and Philo, De Spec. Leg. I. 274), further qualified as ‘undressed’, argoi, stones on which no human art has been expended. The dimensions of the altar correspond to those of the bronze altar of burnt offering in Solomon’s Temple according to the Chronicler (2 Chr. 4:1).

The Holy Place itself he calls a building, oikêma, a word never used by LXX to speak of the Temple. It is, however, used by Herodotus (Histories. VIII. 144) as a general word describing a shrine or chapel. Hecataeus notes the presence there of an altar (again styled bômos), the altar of incense, and a lampstand, luchnion, another word not used by LXX. He gives no further description of their form or significance, and remarkably says nothing about the golden table for the Bread of the Presence.²² That bômos here refers to the altar of incense, not to the table, is shown by the beginning of the next paragraph: on both the lampstand and the altar a light burns. He only remarks that the latter are of gold, giving their weight, probably in total: Exod. 25:39 says that the lampstand weighed one talent, and Exod. 30:3– 4 that the altar of incense was encrusted with gold.

199 The fire on the golden altar and the light on the lampstand are inextinguishable, anaposbestos: this is an exceptionally rare word, not attested in classical Greek and unknown to LXX. It suggests that these ‘eternal lights’ are a particularly striking feature of the Temple Service: they are never extinguished, such that the worship of the Temple is perpetual. Indeed, the never-ceasing aspect of the Service is emphasized here: ‘night and day’ these lights burn, ‘night and day’ the priests carry out the rites. All this surely refers to the daily Service of the Temple, known as the Tamid (Hebrew tâmîd, ‘continual, perpetual’) since the Bible stipulates that certain elements in it are ‘perpetual’. This word is used of the light continually burning on the lampstand (Exod. 27:20; Lev. 24:2–4); of the daily ‘continual’ offering of incense (Exod. 30:7–8), and of the daily offering of two lambs, one in the morning, the other in the evening, ‘perpetually’ (Exod. 28:39–42; Num. 28:3–8). Hecataeus does not refer to the lambs; but the incense and the lamps are a standard part of the ritual.

On the other hand, Exod. 27:21; Lev. 24:3 may seem to qualify the ‘perpetual’ burning of the lamp by ordering it to be tended from evening to morning. Philo would later take this to mean that the lamp burned only at night (De Spec. Leg. I. 296). But Josephus states clearly that three lamps burned by day, all seven by night (Ant. III. 199), while the Rabbis understood that at least one lamp burned continually throughout the day, the seven being kindled from it at evening (m. Tamid 3:9; 6:1; see also Sifra ‘Emor Parasha 13:7 stating that the western light always burns, a point emphasized by Sifre Num. 59).

The lack of a statue (agalma) in the Jewish Temple would have been common knowledge: Diodorus (XL. 3:4) has Hecataeus point out that Moses made no divine images.²³ By votive offering (anathêma) we should understand an image or statue which often graced pagan shrines as a thank offering to the gods from their devotees. The grove (alsôdês) is expl...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• THE JEWISH TEMPLE
• PREFACE
• ABBREVIATIONS
• PRIMARY SOURCES AND REFERENCE WORKS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1: HECATAEUS OF ABDERA
• 2: ARISTEAS
• 3: THE WISDOM OF JESUS BEN SIRA IN HEBREW
• 4: THE WISDOM OF JESUS BEN SIRA IN GREEK
• 5: THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
• 6: THE WRITINGS OF PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
• 7: THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS
• 8: PSEUDO-PHILO’S LIBER: ANTIQUITATUM: BIBLICARUM
• NOTES
• SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY