| Gender Issues Attendant upon the Transition from the Feminine Sophia to the Masculine Logos: Part I
The Cherubim [93] of the Temple:
Patai [94] notes that there was one exception to the commandment that demanded uncompromising condemnation of the worshiping of "graven images or any manner of likeness."� This exception was the "winged human figures which were an integral part...the most important part, of all the Hebrew and Jewish sanctuaries and temples."� These "graven images" were The Cherubim.� Patai notes that these Cherubim figured "prominently in the Temple ritual down to the very end of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (70 C.E.)."� Patai notes that Hebrew-Jewish literature in its entirety "contains not a word that could in the remotest be construed as a condemnation of the Cherubim."� The Cherubim were present in the Holy of Holies, which was the innermost sanctuary of the Temple, and for the most part considered "off limits" to any but priests and then the priests only at very specified times of the year.� Yet as his discussion proceeds, Patai has some astonishing information regarding these Cherubim as iconic figures, who was allowed to view them, under what circumstances such viewing was allowed, and their inclusion of the female principle, "which was considered legitimate at all times."� It seems that over the centuries the symbolism of these Cherubim evolved; so, this paper will briefly discuss the Cherubim.� These Cherubim are important to an understanding of the feminine in the Hebrew religion.�
The Ivory Cherubim:
Patai [95] notes that as far back as 873 B.C.E. the palace of King Ahab of Israel contained "a number of small ivory plaques"; these plaques gave the royal palace the name "Ivory House."� These early figures depict two women in profile, "crouching female figures" that face each other.� Their arms are outstretched toward each other; underneath these outstretched arms is a wing that seems to be attached to the "lower contours" of the outstretched arms of the respective female crouching figures.� Each of these outstretched hands holds a "large flower, probably a lotus."� The upper bodies of these figures that face each other are erect, the legs of each figure are bent, with knees touching each other, and the buttocks of each figure "rest on their upturned heels."� These figures are naked but have about their shoulders "wide, fringed collars...breast-plates hang down from their necks."� The heads of these figures are "covered by Egyptian-type head-cloths" that flow down "behind the ears and over the shoulders"; the heads are "crowned by a hollow, ring-like ornament" that rises "vertically upward."� Patai notes that a "vertical ritual object" with a ring on top of it is similar in type to the ornament on the heads of the two figures; this ring-like ornament rests between the two figures.� This round figure has "under it a four-tiered structure [that is] supported by slender, out-turned legs."� This ritual figure that is positioned between the two Cherubim "engages the attention of the two figures who seem to shield or fan it with their wings." [96] �
Patai notes that this "ivory plaque" is the "closest illustration" to the Cherubim that shielded the Ark in the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple; it is "closest not only in general arrangement and detail, but also in time of provenance and place of discovery as well as origin."�
The Cherubim of the Desert Tabernacle: [97]
The "desert tabernacle" will be considered the one that was carried by the Hebrews through their 40 year journey in the desert in the 1200s B.C.E.� There are varying opinions among scholars concerning whether this 40 year journey actually took place:�
· The story of this journey was a depiction of the "ideas of the post-exilic Judeans about the early history of their ancestors after their liberation from Egypt."�
· The story of the 40 year journey was a later myth developed by a "confederation of tribes in the Canaanite highlands who were opposed to the oppression of the tributary system of the coastal cities." [98] �
Regardless of which of these opinions is correct, it is also "taken for granted" that there were earlier prototypes to the Cherubim of Solomon's Temple and that these prototypes existed in a place that the Hebrews used for their worship in early times.
Patai [99] notes that "according to the Biblical tradition, in both the desert Tabernacle and the Jerusalem Temple, the only supernatural beings represented were the Cherubim."� Patai goes so far as to describe the Cherubim as the "religious leitmotif of both sanctuaries."� He notes that tradition holds that the Tabernacle contained "two figures of Cherubim" who "stood on both sides of the ark-cover," were made of "beaten gold, and, together with the ark-cover, formed a single piece."� The rest of the description of these figures follows closely the above detailed description.� Patai, however, notes that from the supposed time of the Desert Tabernacle there was a veil that "hid the Ark and its two Cherubim from all eyes"; this veil was made of fine linen with "blue, purple and scarlet" colors that reproduced the image "on the outside" of "what it concealed within."� In other words the veil that concealed the Ark and the Cherubim had either woven into the fabric or printed on the fabric of the veil.�
The Cherubim in Solomon's Temple, as "Yahweh's Mounts," and in the Temple of Herod:
Patai [100] in a long and extended discussion notes that the Cherubim leitmotif followed down through the ages and stages in all the temples:� The Desert Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, and the Temple of Jerusalem. [101] � Patai gives extensive descriptions of the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies, on the veil separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple, on the walls of the Temple, and on the various curtains that adorned parts of the Temple other than the Holy of Holies.� These descriptions vary somewhat, mostly in the grandeur of the depictions; but it is likely that as time went on and repairs inevitably had to be made in the Temple, the repairs "improved," the temple or made it "grander."� However, all the descriptions of the Cherubim remain basically the same as has already been described; [102] the only "changes" are in gold, jewels, fine tapestries, etc., being added.�
Symbolic Importance of the Cherubim:
"Yahweh's Mounts":
One thing that has not yet been discussed and is extremely important is the symbolism of the Cherubim.� Patai [103] notes the "symbolic import" changed over time in what he calls the "successive reinterpretations" of the symbolic import of the Cherubim.� He notes that the "earliest symbolic meaning" the Hebrews attributed to the Cherubim was that they stood for the "tangible" representation of the "clouds of the stormy winter sky upon which God was supposed to ride."� This symbol can be found in various forms "among many peoples:� It was found among the Canaanites in the "14th century B.C.E. and among the Ugaritic myths" where the " 'Rider of the Clouds' " was "one of Baal's" titles.� Patai notes two Psalms in which this expression is used of Yahweh:� "lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds; his name is the LORD" (Psalm 68.4); the other is Psalm 104.1, 3-4: [104] � Bless the LORD, O my soul!....who makest the clouds thy chariot, who ridest on the wings of the wind, who makest the winds thy messengers."� In addition Patai notes that references to this same expression (or variations on this expression) referring to Yahweh as "Rider of the Clouds" are found in Isaiah and Habakkuk. [105]
Patai notes that, "in connection with the desert Tabernacle there was an explicit mythical tradition according to which God descended onto and into it in a cloud"; [106] Patai notes that the term "Tabernacle," is from the Hebrew word meaning "dwelling place...because of the divine cloud that abode over it and in it."� He notes that, "God's presence in the Tabernacle was indicated by a cloud," elaborating that God's presence was represented by a cloud during the day and a fire at night.� Patai further states that this cloud was "the palpable sign of God's presence in Solomon's Temple" also.�
Patai notes that it was Ezekiel's visions that emphasized the "connection between clouds and Cherubim as the vehicle of God." [107] � In Ezekiel 10, there are numerous references to the connection between the Cherubim and a vehicle as a means of riding on the cloud, the wheels of the vehicle, and the glory of God.� Patai notes that "the Cherubim, the wheels, the throne [of Yahweh], and the glory of God [form] one unit."� He concludes that in both the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple "the Cherubim were...unmistakable" symbols of the "clouds [from which] God Spoke and which served also as His mount or chariot."�
Shekhina:
Elizabeth Johnson [108] notes the gender of the word for "spirit" in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.� She states that the "Hebrew word for spirit, ruah, is of grammatically feminine gender, that the "biblical Greek term for spirit, pneuma, is grammatically neuter," and that the "Latin term, spiritus, is grammatically masculine."� She states that the grammatical gender of a word [in the these languages] "does not necessarily indicate the maleness or femaleness of its object."�
Patai [109] notes that in the "earliest use of the term Shekhina" the "fact that the noun Shekhina had the feminine gender (Shekhinta in Aramaic) had no significance at all" [emphasis added].� But then Patai [110] notes later that it "should be emphasized...that both in Hebrew and Aramaic, the gender of the subject plays a much greater role in the sentence structure than in Indo-European languages."� He elaborates:� "In Semitic languages, the verb as well as the adjective have separate male and female forms" and that in any sentence involving the Shekhina all the verbs and adjectives surrounding the noun "impress the reader (or hearer) with the femininity of the Shekhina by taking...feminine forms."� He then emphasizes that "even without any explicit pronouncement...the Shekhina was a female divine entity, her sex was kept in the forefront of consciousness by every statement made about her."�
Johnson [111] notes that, "In the Jewish trajectory that developed after the close of the biblical canon, the Spirit of God typically came to be spoken of in the female symbol of the shekinah." [112] � She notes that this word "quite literally means the... 'one who dwells.' "� She states that shekinah came be to used as a synonym "for divine presence among the people....that God or God's Spirit descended on the Holy of Holies."� She goes on to state that the shekinah was "manifest in the symbols of cloud, fire, or radiant light" that descended, overshadowed, or led the people.�
Patai [113] notes in an extended discussion of "The Shekhina" [114] that while "Wisdom...had all the prerequisites for developing into a veritable female deity, no such development took place within Judaism."� He states that "a new concept of feminine divinity in the figure of the Shekhina" was developed.� Patai notes that the figure of "the Shekhina...first appears in the Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the Bible" and further notes that, while there is disagreement concerning the development of this figure, the first century C.E. is most likely when this "Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the Bible" was written. [115] � Patai also notes [116] that the "Shekhina was the direct heir of the Biblical Cloud of Glory which had dwelt in the sanctuary and had been the visible manifestation of Yahweh's presence in His House."
Lastly, Patai notes [117] that Philo discerned "two aspects of the deity" and notes that Philo "assigned masculinity to one, and femininity to the other, aspect of the godhead." [118] � Patai goes on to note that Philo's concept is "not too far removed from [the] old Biblical indeterminacy as to the number of persons in the deity," [119] referring to a masculine aspect and a feminine aspect to the Jewish Yahweh.� Patai then seems to settle on this statement: �
the very fact that all names of God (Yahweh; Elohim; the Holy One, blessed be He; etc.) were masculine, while the name Shekhina was feminine (as were other manifestations of the deity, such as the Holy Spirit, the Word, [120] Wisdom, etc.) inevitably point in the direction of...sexual differentiation.
Jeremiah and the Jews in Egypt and the Worship of the Goddess:�
Patai [121] notes that the "last Biblical reference to Astarte-Anath" does not contain either of these names."� The last Biblical reference is to the "Queen of Heaven" [122] and occurs in (of all places) Jeremiah.� Jeremiah was among the first deportees to Babylon at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E.� He was likely a captive on his way to Babylon when there was a revolt among the Jewish captives.� Jeremiah was in this group that freed themselves from the Babylonians, but they ended up wondering where they should go once they had escaped.� Jeremiah himself counseled against fleeing from the Babylonians.� However, the leaders of the group of which he was only one member completely disregarded his advice and decided to flee to Egypt.� It is presumed that these refugees who included Jeremiah and Baruch joined a Jewish colony in Egypt.�
However, Jeremiah was extremely unhappy to be in Egypt and generally held a low opinion of Egypt; in fact, he seems to have loathed Egypt. [123] � It soon becomes apparent exactly why Jeremiah so loathed Egypt:� It was Jeremiah's opinion [124] that the "great national catastrophe" that had befallen Judah occurred because Judah had failed Yahweh and had resorted to idolatry; his opinion was that the Jews needed to return to their covenant with Yahweh.� However, the people strongly disagreed with Jeremiah.� They believed that their problems were caused by a sin that "had been committed against the Queen of Heaven and not against Yahweh."� The "Queen of Heaven" here referred to is none other than Anath/Astarte.� The scene depicted in Jeremiah is a dramatic one:
Then all the men who knew that their wives had offered incense to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people...in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah:� "As for the word which you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you.� But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her... for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil.� But since we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine."� And the women said, "When we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out libations to her, was it without our husbands' approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out libations to her?" (Jeremiah 44.15-19). [125] �
Patai further notes [126] that these same rites of worship to Astarte were performed in the Temple in Jerusalem.� He cites Jeremiah 7.17-18 which he calls a "unique passage."� Patai points out that this passage describes an actual ritual of Astarte worship.� These rites to Astarte were led by the kings and princes of Judah; those who participated were the men, women, and children of Jerusalem and other cites in Judah.� He notes that there were several features to this ritual worship of Astarte:
� Children gathered wood for the fire that was part of this ritual.
� Fathers lit the fire.
� Women "kneaded dough and made cakes."
� These cakes were baked over the fire. [127]
� Women, assisted by men, burned incense.
� The people also poured out libations to other gods.
� The people believed that this worship of Astarte, the Queen of Heaven, provided the people with "plenty of food" and secured their "well-being in general."
� It is assumed that these rites were led by the king in Jerusalem and by princes in other cities.
� These above-mentioned ritual acts of burning incense, offering up cakes, pouring out libations all presuppose altars.� These altars were either in sanctuaries in the cities or in "high places" [so often mentioned in the Bible] in the countryside.
Patai notes [128] that the "controversy between Jeremiah and the people about the Queen of Heaven must have taken place within a year or two after the arrival of the Judaean refugees in Egypt" and that although Josiah had forbidden the Astarte ritual just 36 years before the arrival of this group of Jews in Egypt, the older members of the group could easily have remembered the ritual.� This writer speculates that likely, although the ritual had been forbidden for some years, it may simply have "gone underground" and never really been abandoned.�
Patai [129] also notes that "the last mention of the name of the old goddess in a Jewish environment comes some 175 years after" the above situation and confrontation with Jeremiah.� This "last mention of the old goddess" is contained in letters written by "Yedoniah, the son of Gemariah who was the priest and head of the Jewish community" in Egypt.� The "Letters of the Jews in Elephantine" [130] are a list of "contributions to the cult of Yaho" (Yahweh).� Three gods are mentioned for whom contributions are collected; these Gods for whom contributions were collected are Yaho, Ishumbethel, and Anathbethel.� Patai points out that this last name is obviously a female Aramaean [131] god.� He notes that this female name is composed of "Anath" and "Bethel" and that the "two elements" composing this name "are unmistakable."� Pritchard [132] says "The monies for the other two deities were doubtless contributed by non-Jews" and that Yedoniah was simply acting as "treasurer or banker for all the Arameans of Elephantine."� However, Patai disagrees with the note in Pritchard for two reasons:� He notes that members of competing or rival religious sects would not trust their cultic donations to the care of a priest of another group because of "keen religious rivalries" in Elephantine. �Second, he notes that in another letter, "Settlement of Claim by Oath" [133] that Yedoniah as part of the truth of the settlement of this claim swears by the "goddess Sati."
It is clear then that 175 years after the Jews of Jeremiah's time, the Jews that were descendants of the people who were determined to return to the worship of Astarte, the Queen of Heaven, still continued to worship the goddess.
The Cherubim in Embrace:� Patai [134] notes according to "one school of thought, the Cherubim were the most important feature in the entire Temple." [135] � He quotes Midrashic teaching: [136] " 'They were the head of everything that was in the Temple, for the Shekhina rested on them and on the ark, and from there He spoke to Moses.' " [137] � Patai cites another "detail" concerning the Cherubim: [138] � " 'When strangers entered the Sanctuary, they saw the Cherubim intertwined with each other."� In relating this description Patai notes that, "According to Biblical command, every male Israelite was duty-bound to make the pilgrimage to the Temple three times a year"; [139] these times were at the Passover in the spring, on the Feast of Weeks which was seven weeks after the Passover, and on the Feast of Booths (also called Sukkoth) which feast fell in autumn.� He notes that the one most "enthusiastically celebrated was the last one" when "the populace was commanded to rejoice."
Patai describes this feast in some detail that is significant for our discussion in this paper: [140] � He notes that this feast was not reserved only for the men; both men and women participated in this feast.� On the seventh day of this feast it seems the veil separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple was lifted by the priests so that all the people could observe the Cherubim who were "intertwined with one another" [141] and the priests said to the people, "Behold! Your love before God is like the love of male and female!" [142] � Patai then notes [143] that the men and women mingled and "commit[ed] what is euphemistically referred to a 'lightheadedness.' "� Patai states, "We can only surmise that the showing of the Cherubim representing a male and a female figure in marital embrace...incited the crowds to this 'lightheadedness,' which could have been nothing but an orgiastic outburst of sexual license."� He goes on to note that such "ritual license" was not unusual, rather it was "in accordance with both old Hebrew practice and the religious customs of other ancient Near Eastern peoples." [144] � Patai notes, though, that by the "last century of the existence of the Second Temple of Jerusalem" [145] (which would be from 30 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.) the described "popular enthusiasm" of earlier times "became intolerable" as far as the sages were concerned.� They, therefore, likely "put an end to the festive 'lightheadedness' " and confined the women to "special galleries" of the Temple, separating them from the men; however, even confining the women in this measure met with "stubborn popular resistance" to the traditional practice of "imitatio dei called for by the momentary glimpse of divine mystery."
The Goddess from the First Century B.C.E. through the First to Third Centuries C.E.:
The Cherubim and Philo and Josephus:�
Patai notes both Philo and Josephus show "remarkable reticence" and "extreme reticence" [146] respectively in regard to the Cherubim.� Immediately, the question comes to mind:� Why?�
Philo:�
Patai notes that Philo gives a "different view" of the Cherubim than that cited above.�� It is clear from the descriptions given in Philo's own works [147] that Philo himself must have visited the Temple in Jerusalem; his descriptions of the Temple are so detailed and precise that it would have been impossible for him to have "made up" these detailed descriptions.� Another possibility is that Philo had access to detailed descriptions and possibly even maps of the Temple he could have found in any of the several synagogues of Alexandria.
According to Patai, [148] Philo [149] gives three interpretations of the Cherubim.� Patai notes [150] that, "as long as he speaks of the courtyards and the exterior of the Temple, his description is detailed and even verbose."� However, when Philo mentions the Cherubim, he does two things.�
· First, Philo interprets the Cherubim in three ways.� He states the Cherubim were the symbols of God's goodness and authority. [151] � Elaborating in describing the "covering of the ark," Philo says
o The ark is the "foundation for two winged creatures...which are called, in the native language of the Hebrews, cherubim, but as the Greeks would translate the word, vast knowledge and science."�
o He then says that some people would describe the Cherubim as symbols of "two hemispheres, placed opposite to and fronting one another."�
o In yet another description he says he himself would describe the cherubim as the "two most ancient and supreme powers of the divine God, namely, his creative and kingly power." [152] �
· Second, regarding the Cherubim in the Holy of Holies specifically:
o He states this "innermost shrine" was "inaccessible." [153] �
o Yet in another place he does describe the Holy of Holies but then within that very statement, Philo contradicts himself:� He states, "what is innermost is invisible to every human creature except the high priest alone."� However, in the very next sentence he describes the high priest who carries "a brasier full of coals and frankincense"; he then notes that "a great smoke proceeds from it...everything all around is enveloped in it, then the sight of men is clouded, and checked, and prevented from penetrating in, being wholly unable to pierce the cloud." [154] � But it may be that Philo does not necessarily contradict himself.� Moore [155] notes that "the grammar of the original Greek implies that the general sight of 'men' is clouded, not the sight of the high priest who has permission to enter God's presence once a year."
So, it seems clear from these passages that Philo does two things:�
· First, he gives what this writer calls a "Greek" interpretation to the Cherubim rather than a "Hebrew" interpretation.� Yet this Greek interpretation is not as "odd" as it may seem at first thought.� Moore [156] points out that Philo was, after all, a Hellenized Jew who did not know Hebrew.� It would be quite natural that, in the syncretistic atmosphere of Alexandria, Philo would absorb much of pagan learning and exegetical practice.�
· Second, Philo contradicts himself, saying initially that only the high priest saw the Cherubim and then saying that the high priest, even though he entered the Holy of Holies, could see nothing of what was in the Holy of Holies because of all the smoke from the burning incense.� It has been claimed that Philo meant here that the smoke was meant to blind the eyes of any who dared to attempt to physically view God or the Cherubim and that the vision of the high priest was a spiritual vision.� But it seems to this writer that if, as noted above, the Greek grammatical meaning was that the sight of "men" was clouded and not the sight of the high priest, then either Philo was contradicting himself or at the very least was unsure of what he meant.� This writer agrees with Patai's interpretation given below.
In Philo's interpretation of the Cherubim, Patai notes there seems to be an "uncertainty in Philo's mind" concerning the Cherubim.�
· Philo admits, that on occasion his "own soul" was "seized with a certain divine inspiration, even concerning matters which it could not explain even to itself; which now, if I am able to remember it accurately, I will related....the third thing which was between the two [Cherubim that] had the effect of bringing them together was reason, for that it was owing to reason that God was both a ruler and good." [157] �
· Philo in another place states, "but of the father and mother...their powers are different....we say that that the Creator of the universe is also the father of his creation; and that the mother was the knowledge of the Creator." [158] �
In an extended discussion of what this writer calls Philo's "Greek" interpretation of the Cherubim, Patai notes that in these two separate interpretations of the Cherubim, Philo hints at or implies "an idea of bisexual symbolism"; yet Patai notes Philo "stops short...of saying anything about a female aspect of God." [159] � But Patai, [160] however, also notes that "Philo had in mind one and the same dichotomy" of a masculine God represented by God (Elohim) and Lord (Yahweh).� (See footnote above on the masculine/feminine inconsistencies in this dichotomy.) �Patai notes significantly that this dichotomy is the "earliest indication [emphasis added] of the idea that one of the Cherubim in the Temple represented a male and the other a female figure" and that "the Cherubim couple was shown in marital embrace in a sculpture which stood in the Holy of Holies of the Second Temple." [161] �
Josephus:�
Patai [162] notes that Philo's lack of concrete information regarding the Cherubim might lead one to think Josephus would have the information on the Cherubim that is lacking in Philo.� Scholars generally agree that Josephus lived from C.E. 37-100. [163] � Since Josephus would have been in his thirties when the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in C.E. 70, one could presume that Josephus would have been able to accurately describe it.� In fact, Patai [164] states that Josephus was himself a priest and would have had "a thorough, firsthand familiarity" with the Temple and its complete environs. [165] In fact, Josephus has extensive information on the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple (which he would have had to have gleaned from Biblical writings); he also has extensive information on the Temple that existed in his time, including information on the priesthood, the rituals and services conducted at the Temple, and even the vestments worn by the priests during rituals.� However, on examining Josephus' works describing the Cherubim, one finds that one might describe the Cherubim as "conspicuous by their absence."�
In fact, the "reticence" noted above that Josephus exhibited concerning the Cherubim extends not only to the Cherubim in the Temple of his own time but also to his descriptions of the Cherubim in both the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple.�
· Patai notes two points in Josephus' description of the Tabernacle: [166]
o Regarding the Cherubim in the Tabernacle, Josephus states:� "Upon its [the Ark of the Covenant's] cover were two images, which the Hebrews call Cherubims; they are flying creatures, but their form is not like to that of any of the creatures which men have seen, though Moses said he had seen such beings near the throne of God." [167] � Patai notes that there "seems to be an intention here to deny all similarity between the Cherubim and any living creature, and to assert that they were supposed to represent divine beings." [168] � Patai also "corrects" Josephus, noting that where Josephus refers to Moses, he should have referred to Ezekiel, 9.3 and 10.1-22 as "it is in the latter's prophecies and not in the Pentateuch, that the Cherubim surrounding the throne are described."
o Patai further notes that even "more remarkable is the omission by Josephus of any reference to the Cherubim which adorned the curtains and Veil in the desert Tabernacle." [169]
· Regarding the Cherubim in Solomon's Temple, Josephus describes not only the Holy of Holies but also the other parts of the Temple. [170] � Images of the Cherubim were known to have been woven into the curtains and veil of the Temple.� (See above.)�
o With regard to the curtains and veil of Solomon's Temple, Josephus, however, notes, "veils of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and the brightest and softest of linen, with the most curious flowers wrought upon them." [171] � The Cherubim here again are "conspicuous by their absence."
o With regard to other parts of Solomon's Temple, namely the walls where "alternating figures of Cherubim and palm trees as well as...flowers" [172] are known to have been carved in the walls and even covered with gold, Josephus notes, "He [Solomon] enclosed the walls with boards of cedar, so he fixed on them plates of gold, which had sculptures upon them:� so that the whole temple shined, and dazzled the eyes of such as entered by the splendor of the gold that was on every side of them." [173] � Once again, any mention of the Cherubim is "conspicuous by its absence."
o Regarding the Cherubim in Solomon's Temple specifically, Josephus states that in the Holy of Holies there were "two cherubims of solid gold...they had each of them two wings stretched out...but nobody can tell, or even conjecture, what was the shape of these cherubims." [174] � Patai notes regarding this passage that Josephus "flatly contradicts Biblical texts, [and] one begins to suspect that he must have had a definite purpose in mind in omitting to mention the Cherubim so ubiquitous in the Solomonic Temple." [175]
· Regarding the Cherubim in the Second Temple, the Temple of Josephus' time, Josephus has this to say:
o He notes specifically that the women were confined to their own space:� "there was a partition built for the women...as the proper place wherein they were to worship, there was a necessity of a second gate for them....the women were not allowed to pass through them [other gates, presumably for the men]; nor when they went through their own gate could they go beyond their own wall." [176] � So here is evidence that the women had been separated from the men to preclude any "lightheadedness" described above.
o Regarding the walls, the curtains, and the Veil, Josephus says:� "the house was...all over covered with gold, as was its whole wall about it; it had also golden vines about it, from which clusters of grapes hung as tall as a man's height...there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors.� It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful." [177] � He further states that this "curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens." [178] � Again, Josephus simply omits any mention of the Cherubim.
o With regard to the Holy of Holies, Josephus says:� "the inmost part of the temple...was also separated from the outer part by a veil.� In this there was nothing at all.� [Emphasis added.] �It was inaccessible and inviolable, and not to be seen by any; and was called the Holy of Holies." [179] � Once again, any mention of the Cherubim is "conspicuous by its absence" in Josephus' very extensive description of the Temple of his time.
Summary of Philo and Josephus:�
Philo is inconsistent and contradictory in his writings regarding the Cherubim.� He seems to vacillate between "wanting" to acknowledge the two Cherubim and their significance yet stopping short of "coming right out and saying so."� This vacillation may be evidence of another consideration in Philo's work:� It may be that Philo was in the process of formulating his thought regarding the masculine/feminine aspects of God.� Patai admittedly acknowledges that Philo was the first to express the "earliest" indication of the idea that the Cherubim of the Temple may have represented the masculine/feminine aspects of God.� Since it could be that Philo had not fully formulated his thought, perhaps he chose to omit reference to the Cherubim for that reason.� But in the end, all such consideration is speculation.� What is certain is that Philo was inconsistent and contradictory in his statements about the masculine/feminine aspects of God.
Josephus, for his part, totally denies that anybody knew anything at all about the Cherubim.� When he does even admit their presence in the Temple, and he should have been most cognizant of their presence as he was a priest, he states that nobody can "figure out" what they might possibly mean, if, indeed they were there.� In addition he goes out of his way to mention that the women had their own place in the Temple totally separate from the men, which seems an attempt to "ward off" any hint of "lightheadedness" being attributed to the ceremonies in the Temple.�
In another place Josephus notes [180] that, "while they accuse us for not worshipping the same gods whom others worship, they think themselves not guilty of impiety when they tell lies of us, and frame absurd and reproachful stories about our temple." �Here Josephus was responding to what happened during and after the destruction of the Temple.� He states that after "our temple" was "spoiled," much gold "worth a great deal of money" was found.� It seems there were rumors that the Jews "found that ass's head...made of gold."� Josephus is extremely offended by these rumors.� He notes:� "none of them found any such thing there, nor indeed any thing but what was agreeable to the strictest piety; although what they found we are not at liberty to reveal to other nations."� In noting the Holy of Holies he states "there is nothing...there, nor are there any mysteries performed that may not be spoke of."� So, while he attempts to refute the false rumors that were spread about what was found in the temple and that was not there, it is clear he is omitting what was there, stating that what the pillagers of the Temple did find, "we are not at liberty to reveal"--once again, Josephus deals with the Cherubim with a "conspicuous by their absence approach."
In conclusion, then, it seems that both Philo and Josephus for their own possible reasons avoided any reference to the Cherubim of the Temple.�
� Josephus may have been trying to (in what may be considered today's terms) "minimize damage" that may have been done to the general concept of Jewish monotheism and any scandal that resulted when the Temple was destroyed and the objects and materials in the temple were paraded through the streets of Jerusalem.
� Philo, as Patai points out above, was the first to grapple in some kind of specific intellectual manner with the concept of the masculine/feminine in God; by "specific intellectual manner" is meant that Philo may have been the first to start to grapple with actually putting into words the non-verbalized, sense perceptible, subjective, behavioral responses to the masculine/feminine aspects of God that were discerned by the people up to that time.
It may be noted that the reluctance of these two scholars was part of a general trend in the era--to spiritualize or intellectualize aspects of ancient religious expression that had come to be seen as primitive.� (See Part II for Word/Logos section of this paper.)
2 дел од 1-от дел
|